People v. Bravo
238 Cal. Rptr. 282, 738 P.2d 336, 43 Cal.3d 600 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A condition of probation that permits a search 'with or without a warrant' also permits a search without reasonable cause. A probationer's consent to such a condition constitutes a waiver of their Fourth Amendment rights, so long as the search is conducted for a legitimate law enforcement purpose and not for harassment.
Facts:
- On January 20, 1981, Bravo was convicted of possessing concentrated cannabis and was granted probation.
- As a condition of his probation, Bravo agreed to “submit his person and property to search or seizure at any time of the day or night by any law enforcement officer with or without a warrant.”
- In February 1982, while Bravo was on probation, an anonymous neighbor telephoned the Anaheim Police Department, reporting that heavy traffic around Bravo's home suggested he was selling narcotics.
- Police conducted surveillance but observed nothing to substantiate the anonymous tip.
- After learning Bravo was on probation and subject to a search condition, officers confirmed the condition by obtaining a copy of the probation order.
- On March 19, 1982, officers conducted a search of Bravo's home pursuant to the probation condition.
- The search of Bravo's home uncovered cocaine, firearms, and a large amount of cash.
Procedural Posture:
- Bravo was charged in trial court with possession of cocaine, possession of cocaine for sale, and possession of a concealable firearm by a convicted felon.
- The trial court denied Bravo's motions to set aside the information and to suppress the evidence seized from his home.
- Following the denial of his motions, Bravo pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine for sale and possession of a concealable firearm.
- Bravo (as appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal, challenging the denial of his suppression motion.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of conviction, holding that the search was unlawful because it was not supported by reasonable cause.
- The People then sought review of the Court of Appeal's decision from the California Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a probation condition that subjects a probationer to a search 'at any time of the day or night by any law enforcement officer with or without a warrant' also permit a search to be conducted without reasonable cause?
Opinions:
Majority - Panelli, J.
Yes. A probation condition that permits a search without a warrant also permits a search without reasonable cause. The scope of a probationer's consent to a search condition is determined by an objective test based on what a reasonable person would understand from the language of the condition itself. Unlike parolees, who have search conditions imposed upon them, probationers voluntarily consent to waive their Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for the privilege of avoiding prison. This waiver is a complete surrender of Fourth Amendment protections, save for the right to be free from searches conducted for harassment or for arbitrary or capricious reasons. Requiring reasonable cause would render the probation search condition superfluous and undermine its dual purposes of deterring further offenses and monitoring compliance.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal framework for probation searches in California, clearly distinguishing them from parole searches. By rejecting a 'reasonable cause' requirement for consensual probation searches, the court empowers law enforcement to monitor probationers more effectively, viewing the search condition as a broad waiver of Fourth Amendment rights. The ruling emphasizes the contractual nature of probation, where a defendant voluntarily trades privacy for leniency. This holding reinforces the objective interpretation of probation orders, meaning the plain language of the agreement governs the scope of the search, which has significant implications for how these conditions are drafted and enforced.
