Opinion ID: 1196421
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Discovery of the Hammer

Text: (27) Defendant also maintains his trial attorney should have moved to suppress the hammer found by the victim's ex-husband, Leighton Smith. The hammer was found, however, during Leighton Smith's examination of the victim's apartment and belongings in his capacity as administrator of her estate. Inasmuch as Leighton Smith found the hammer in his capacity as a private citizen, the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures was inapplicable. ( People v. North (1981) 29 Cal.3d 509, 514 [174 Cal. Rptr. 511, 629 P.2d 19].) Defendant attempts to characterize Leighton Smith as an agent of the police and argues the private citizen rationale is thus inapplicable. (See Dyas v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 628, 633, fn. 2 [114 Cal. Rptr. 114, 522 P.2d 674].) The record does not support his contention. Officer Tonello merely told Leighton Smith, If you happen to run across a hammer or anything, let me know. From this brief comment, we cannot conclude Tonello requested [an] illegal search or knowingly allowed it to take place. ( Ibid. ) Indeed, as administrator of the deceased's estate, Leighton Smith's search was not illegal.