Opinion ID: 1277687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Seizure of Weapons From Backyard of Hideout

Text: As recounted above, defendant and Rita Lewis sought shelter at the house of his second cousin Beverly Jermany at approximately 5:30 a.m. on December 8, 1986, shortly after he committed the murders. Later that morning, the police conducted a search of Jermany's backyard pursuant to a consent-to-search form she had executed at 8:46 a.m. They found the Uzi, the Smith and Wesson, and the Taurus defendant used to commit the murders, in a pillowcase in the backyard. Before trial, defendant moved to suppress this evidence. The trial court denied the motion on the grounds that Jermany had validly consented to the search, that defendant lacked standing to assert her Fourth Amendment rights, and that the pillowcase had in any event been within plain view. Defendant now contends the trial court erred. We disagree. `An illegal search or seizure violates the federal constitutional rights only of those who have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place or seized thing.' [Citation.] ( People v. McPeters (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1148, 1171, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 832 P.2d 146.) A valid consent to search eliminates the need for either a warrant or probable cause.... [¶] The person in control of the premises may consent to a search thereof. ( People v. Reed (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 994, 995-996, 61 Cal.Rptr. 60.) Defendant cites Minnesota v. Olson (1990) 495 U.S. 91, 96-97, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85, for the proposition that the status as an overnight guest is alone enough to show that [a person] had an expectation of privacy in the home that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. But even if we assume, arguendo, that defendant was an overnight guest, Olson does not support his position. That case did not involve a situation in which the overnight guest's host consented to the search, and does not suggest that the host's consent to a search may not a render lawful a search of the host's house or a seizure therefrom. Indeed, the Olson court premised its holding regarding the privacy expectations of houseguests on the observation that [t]he houseguest is there with the permission of his host, who is willing to share his house and his privacy with his guest.... The host may admit or exclude from the house as he prefers, but it is unlikely that he will admit someone who wants to see or meet with the guest over the objections of the guest. ( Id at p. 99, 110 S.Ct. 1684.) In the present case, defendant's host unambiguously consented to the search. Defendant cites Tompkins v. Superior Court (1963) 59 Cal.2d 65, 69, 27 Cal.Rptr. 889, 378 P.2d 113, which held that one joint occupant who is away from the premises may not authorize police officers to enter and search the premises over the objection of another joint occupant who is present at the time, at least where ... no prior warning is given, no emergency exists and the officer fails even to disclose his purpose to the occupant who is present or to inform him that he has the consent of the absent occupant to enter. Defendant, however, was in no sense a joint occupant, but rather a transient guest, a critical difference in defining his expectation of privacy. We conclude that Jermany's consent rendered the search of her backyard lawful.