Opinion ID: 2590211
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Validity of warrants and seizures

Text: Defendant first contends that none of the warrants for the search of his home were supported by probable cause. In part, his argument rests on his claim, rejected above, that his arrest and the search of his car, which yielded evidence presented in the affidavit for the house search warrants, were invalid. In other part, defendant argues probable cause was lacking because law enforcement officers had no reason to believe Gambrel was ever in defendant's house, and the other murders of which defendant was suspected had occurred too long before the search to justify a belief that any evidence was still present in the house. Defendant, however, fails to acknowledge that one of the photographs found in his car depicted a man, apparently deceased, sitting on a couch; that another of the photographs depicted a man who was either dead, asleep or unconscious; and that others showed undressed men. Clearly, officers could reasonably believe the photographs might have been taken in defendant's home and that additional evidence of criminal activity might be found there. Contrary to defendant's implicit argument, a finding of probable cause did not require either independent evidence of the date of the photograph or independent confirmation that the couch depicted in the photograph was in fact located in defendant's home. And the fact that the front passenger seat of defendant's car was found to be saturated with blood that probably was not Gambrel's reasonably justified a belief that defendant was responsible for other crimes. Coupled with the photographs suggesting defendant might have engaged in criminal acts in his home, the presence in his car of blood of unknown origin further supported the warrant for the search of his house. Defendant also contends the warrants authorizing the search of his house were overbroad and vague. The only specific example of the asserted vagueness defendant offers relates to the various shirts described therein. We see no vagueness in the descriptions of which defendant complains; for example, searching officers would have entertained no uncertainty as to whether a blue plaid long sleeved flannel shirt was encompassed within the warrant, even if more than one shirt fitting that description might be found on the premises. Given that officers had received information indicating each of the items specified in the warrants was associated with a particular victim, the charge of overbreadth must be rejected as well. Defendant complains so many items were seized that were not specified in the warrants that the officers perforce conducted a general search. As discussed above ( ante, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 43, 5 P.3d at p. 106), however, searching officers may seize items not listed in the warrant, provided such items are in plain view while the officers are lawfully in the location where they are searching and the incriminating character of the items is immediately apparent. ( Horton v. California, supra, 496 U.S. at p. 136, 110 S.Ct. 2301.) Defendant vaguely asserts, It is not any single item that presents the problem, but the overall array of items taken and the failure to present any substantial reason for seizing many items that highlights the overall legal problem. The assertion, lacking as it is in specificity, virtually defies review. Defendant observes that the burden is on the People to justify the seizure of items not seized under the warrants, but on appeal all presumptions favor the judgment. ( In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133, 275 Cal. Rptr. 797, 800 P.2d 1227.) Defendant seems to suggest that searching officers must have probable cause to connect each item seized with a particular murder victim, and that every such item be precisely described in the warrant, but he cites no authority for such an exacting interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. In sum, all the items of any significance that defendant enumerates as having been seized outside the scope of the warrant and used against him at trial are of a character that searching officers would immediately have recognized as incriminating. To cite but one example, the seizure of shoelaces from defendant's garage and den closet was clearly proper under the plain view doctrine, given the significance of ligatures and the fact that victims were missing shoelaces in several of the murders charged to defendant.