Opinion ID: 2575291
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Storage locker search

Text: On February 25, 1988, Detective Piatanesi obtained a search warrant for the storage locker rented in Mei Chang's name the weekend before the commission of the crimes. [12] The supporting affidavit sets forth the same information as was provided in support of the warrant to search defendant's residence and vehicle. In addition, the affidavit noted that Mei Chang had rented the storage locker on February 13, three days before the shootings, at defendant's requestbecause he had credit problems and needed the space to store computers, books, and tools. The affidavit further observed that Chang was with defendant when the locker was rented, but not when he moved property into it. In the course of searching the storage locker, Piatanesi observed an IBM computer among the locker's contents. On March 18, 1988, he obtained a second warrant to search the locker, authorizing seizure of the computer observed during the first search of the locker, including all software and hardware. Defendant contends the first warrant to search the storage locker lacked probable cause and sufficient particularity, and because of these defects, the second warrant authorizing seizure of the computer was based upon tainted evidence. As to the first search warrant, in light of the circumstance that any items stored in the locker were placed there sometime during the three days preceding the shootings, a magistrate reasonably could conclude there was probable cause to believe incriminating evidence would be found in the storage locker. (See Gonzalez, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 1206.) Because the search authorized by the warrant was virtually identical to the search authorized with respect to defendant's residence and vehicle, the warrant was sufficiently particular in describing the objects of the search, for the same reasons as stated above. Moreover, defendant has not identified any item seized that was admitted at trial. Accordingly, even if we were to assume some provision of the warrant was overbroad, defendant has not shown that any evidence should have been suppressed. ( People v. Carpenter (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1016, 1043-1044 [90 Cal.Rptr.2d 607, 988 P.2d 531] ( Carpenter ).) Because we conclude the first search of the storage locker was proper, we reject defendant's contention that the second search warrant was tainted by the first assertedly unconstitutional search of the storage locker. His additional contentionthat documents from the telephone company, Pacific Bell, which were not identified in the warrant and were unrelated to the computer, improperly were seized in the second searchalso fails. The documents from Pacific Bell were seized pursuant to a search warrant directed to Pacific Bell, and the return to that separate warrant apparently was attached inadvertently to the return to the second storage locker search warrant. Piatanesi testified that diskettes, [13] not documents from Pacific Bell, were seized in connection with the second search of the locker.