People v. Woods
99 Daily Journal DAR 8867, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6990, 21 Cal.4th 668 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An officer’s subjective motivation or ulterior purpose for conducting a search pursuant to a probationer's search condition is irrelevant to its Fourth Amendment validity. The search is constitutional so long as the circumstances, viewed objectively, justify the action.
Facts:
- Gayla Loza was on felony probation and, as a condition, had agreed to warrantless searches of her residence.
- Loza resided at 615 West 9th Street with her boyfriend, Jason Mofield, and two other individuals, Cheryl Woods and William Benson.
- Three days prior to the search, Police Officer Norm Wielsch received a tip that drugs were being sold at that address.
- On September 9, 1995, Officer Wielsch observed Mofield walking away from the residence carrying a long, cloth-covered object in a suspicious manner.
- Wielsch stopped Mofield and discovered he was carrying a large knife and plastic baggies containing suspected drugs.
- After arresting Mofield, Wielsch decided to conduct a warrantless probation search of Loza's residence, believing Mofield might have more drugs stored there.
- At the residence, Wielsch entered pursuant to Loza's probation condition and discovered Woods and Benson in a bedroom with methamphetamine, marijuana, and two guns.
Procedural Posture:
- Cheryl Woods and William Benson were indicted in the superior court for various drug and firearm offenses.
- Defendants filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing the search was an unconstitutional pretext.
- The superior court (trial court) granted the motion to suppress and subsequently dismissed the charges.
- The People (prosecution), as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court's ruling, finding itself bound by the trial court's factual finding of pretext.
- The People petitioned the Supreme Court of California for review.
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 police officer's subjective intent to find evidence against a non-probationer invalidate a warrantless search of a residence shared by the non-probationer and a probationer, when the probationer is subject to a valid search condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
No. An officer’s subjective intent does not invalidate a probation search if the circumstances, viewed objectively, justified the officer’s actions. Applying the objective standard from Whren v. United States, the court holds that ulterior motives do not invalidate police conduct that is justifiable on an objective basis. Here, Loza’s probation search condition, combined with the recent tip of drug sales and the arrest of her cohabitant Mofield with drugs and a weapon just outside the residence, provided ample objective justification for the search. A probationer's advance consent to a warrantless search is a valid exception to the Fourth Amendment, and those who choose to live with a probationer assume the risk that common areas may be searched.
Dissenting - Kennard, J.
Yes. The search is invalid because it permits police to use a probation search condition as a pretext to search a home for the express purpose of seeking evidence against non-probationers who share the residence. This decision erodes the constitutional protections of privacy in the home, which is the 'chief evil' the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. The majority's rule authorizes warrantless, suspicionless searches of private homes based on the status of just one resident, undermining the privacy of everyone inside.
Dissenting - Brown, J.
Yes. The majority’s reliance on consent and Whren is flawed, as a probationer's coerced, advance waiver of rights is not a valid third-party consent against a present, non-consenting cohabitant. Whren's objective standard is inapplicable because that case was predicated on the existence of probable cause, which is absent here. A probation search is a 'special needs' exception to the warrant requirement and must be conducted for a valid probationary purpose; using it as a subterfuge to investigate third parties is an unconstitutional pretext that renders the search invalid. The trial court's factual finding that the officer's sole motive was to search for evidence against Mofield should have been dispositive.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens police authority by extending the objective reasonableness test from traffic stops (Whren) to probation searches. It effectively nullifies the 'pretext' or 'subterfuge' argument as a defense in cases involving probation searches, shifting the focus entirely from the officer's state of mind to the external circumstances. This ruling diminishes the Fourth Amendment privacy protections for non-probationers who coinhabit a residence with a probationer, as they are now more vulnerable to searches initiated for purposes unrelated to the probationer's supervision. The case solidifies the principle that as long as a legal justification exists for an action, the officer's subjective motivation is constitutionally irrelevant.
