Search by Private Citizen/Foreign Officers
Category > Search by Private Citizen/Foreign Officers
Police request from private citizen to produce images from defendant’s room, other than the ones he volunteered was an illegal search.Defendant pled guilty to burglary arising from an entry into his roommate’s bedroom to use her webcam to obtain images of her having sex with her boyfriend, Sadler. Defendant moved to suppress evidence claiming Sadler became an agent for police who went into defendant’s room and seized a number of discs containing images from the webcam that defendant had copied from his roommate’s computer. However, Sadler was not a police agent when he took the discs from defendant’s room and no illegal search occurred when he showed the images to police. An illegal search did occur when police, acting without a warrant, directed Sadler to show them additional images and, on their own, looked at some of the discs without knowing whether they were the ones Sadler had already viewed. Because the trial court ruled there was no illegal search, it never reached the issue of what evidence, if any, was subject to suppression as a product of the illegal search – including subsequent incriminating statements. id: 20527
Exclusion of the evidence was not necessary where a private security guard exceeded the defined limits of a search.Appellant argued that if the search by the security guard was a private search, it violated Penal Code section 846, which strictly limits private citizen searches to removing offensive weapons on the person of the arrestee because the security guard in the instant case seized and examined the baggies. The court held that Fourth Amendment protection does not extend to searches carried out by private persons, and appellant's remedy is civil in nature.id: 10914
Mall security guard acting in a purely private capacity did not assert the power of the state.A private mall security guard found a wallet in one of the mall's common areas, opened the wallet to verify identification and discovered a paper bundle containing a substance resembling cocaine. The security guard did not make an arrest or in any other way assert the power of the state. He merely inspected lost property and called the police. Therefore, the protection of the Fourth Amendment did not apply.id: 10915
Private security guards who arrested appellant and seized his drugs were not operating jointly with the police for state action purposes.Private security guards searched appellant and found marijuana. Appellant argued the state was involved in the security guards' actions because they were operating jointly with the police and because they acted solely for a public purpose. However, the impetus for the arrests came from the security guards; there was no indication the state agents in any way coerced the security guards to effect the arrest; there was no evidence the security guards' uniforms were similar to those of the police department; and the guards did not verbally claim to be police officers. Moreover, regarding the public purpose, the federal test requiring a showing of deprivation of a state created right by persons who can be shown to be state actors was not satisfied.id: 10916
Search by private mailing company employee did not violate the Fourth Amendment.An employee at a shipping and receiving business - Mr. Postman opened a package he was to have shipped by the United Parcel Service. The package contained a white powdery substance and the employee contacted the investigation office of affairs for UPS. The investigating officer then called the police and determined the substance to be methamphetamine. Evidence supported the trial court's finding that the employee was acting as a responsible citizen and not as an agent of the government. He was not a paid informant and when he suspected that the package contained drugs he did not contact the police but UPS. Moreover, the seizure and subsequent testing of the substance by the police, without a warrant violated no constitutional right.id: 10917
Search by private security guards does not, by itself, constitute state action under federal law.The trial court erred in suppressing evidence under <i>People v. Zelinski</i>, (1979) 24 Cal.3d 357, in that the case has been superseded by the adoption of Article 1, section 28, subdivision (d), of the California Constitution. It is no longer required that evidence seized by privately employed security personnel, who are acting on their own initiative and are not instruments or agents of the state, be excluded. Federal law now determines whether there has been state action for purposes of applying the Fourth Amendment.id: 10918
The 4th Amendment does not apply to search by U.S. agents of nonresident alien's property in foreign country.Defendant, a nonresident alien, was arrested at the Mexican border on drug smuggling charges. Shortly thereafter, U.S. agents obtained authorization from the Mexican government to accompany Mexican police in a search of defendant's house in Mexico. In a 6-3 opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, the Supreme Court held that the 4th Amendment does not protect the defendant, who was a citizen and resident of Mexico with no voluntary attachment to the United States, and the place searched was located in Mexico. Justices Stevens and Kennedy concurred separately, and Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun dissented.id: 10919
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245