Magic Exists!
Case decided 3 days ago. The Constitution Lives.
DETENTION OF THE DEFENDANT ILLEGAL; CONSENT VITIATED
The police saw Vargas in a front yard, stripping wire from an air
conditioner. They approached Vargas and asked what he was doing. He
said he was stripping the wire because the air conditioner didn’t
work, and that he was visiting the defendant, who lived in the house.
The police saw that a side door to the house was open. The officer
stuck his head in the door and commanded anyone inside to come to the
door. The defendant responded. The officer directed the defendant to
walk to the door backwards and come outside. The defendant did so.
The officer asked for consent to search, got it, and found meth.
The police saw Vargas in a front yard, stripping wire from an air
conditioner. They approached Vargas and asked what he was doing. He
said he was stripping the wire because the air conditioner didn’t
work, and that he was visiting the defendant, who lived in the house.
The police saw that a side door to the house was open. The officer
stuck his head in the door and commanded anyone inside to come to the
door. The defendant responded. The officer directed the defendant to
walk to the door backwards and come outside. The defendant did so.
The officer asked for consent to search, got it, and found meth.
The Court of Appeals says that the officer had detained the defendant before the requested consent thus there was no probable cause to believe that the defendant was committing any crime. The illegal detention vitiated the consent. Evidence suppressed!
People v. Lujano; E057671; 8/26/14; C/A 4th, Div. 2
Shyster