Opinion ID: 2590211
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Search at defendant's former place of business

Text: Defendant challenges the May 26, 1983, search warrant for the business premises of Lear-Siegler, where he had worked from January 1980 through January 1983. The warrant directed the seizure of seven cardboard boxes with defendant's name written on them, the contents of those boxes, nine business binders located atop the boxes, and any other material containing defendant's name. Investigator Sidebotham's affidavit in support of the warrant application incorporated the four earlier affidavits relating to the searches of defendant's car and house, and further stated that, on May 23, 1983, an anonymous informant had telephoned an investigator for the Orange County District Attorney's Office to say that defendant had a diary at Lear-Siegler's place of business. Sidebotham contacted the general manager, who confirmed defendant was employed there and had some property stored on the premises. A Lear-Siegler employee showed Sidebotham some cardboard boxes with defendant's name written on them, along with nine business binders on top of the boxes. On his own initiative, the employee had gone through the boxes and had found a black address-type book with defendant's name on it. Sidebotham placed significance on the fact that the Oregon and Michigan murders of which defendant was suspected had occurred during a period when defendant was engaged in work-related travel to those states. Sidebotham therefore suspected he might find business records linking defendant to both Orange County and out-of-state murders. Defendant challenges the warrant for the search of Lear-Siegler's premises on the basis that the supporting affidavit relied on information gleaned from the searches of defendant's car and house, searches he contends were illegal and thus tainted the Lear-Siegler search. As discussed above, we have rejected defendant's claims that the earlier searches of his house and car were constitutionally invalid and therefore find no basis on which to invalidate the search at Lear-Siegler. Defendant also suggests, without citation to authority, that the magistrate could not properly issue a warrant to search for evidence of crimes committed in another state in the absence of a request from law enforcement authorities in that state. As the Attorney General observes, section 1524, subdivision (a) provides a search warrant may be issued, inter alia, [w]hen the property was stolen or embezzled and [w]hen the property or things to be seized consist of any item or constitute any evidence that tends to show a felony has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony. The statute contains no language suggesting the things to be seized must relate to a crime committed within this state or that the initiative must come from elsewhere. Finally, we reject defendant's unsupported contention that the Lear-Siegler search was an unconstitutional general search, as the warrant clearly specified the items to be seized.