Opinion ID: 1307321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the search of the backyard

Text: (1a) Petitioner contends that the search of the backyard by the officers accompanying petitioner was illegal, relying on Vidaurri v. Superior Court, 13 Cal. App.3d 550, 553 [91 Cal. Rptr. 704]. Petitioner's contention is without merit. In People v. Bradley, 1 Cal.3d 80, 84-85 [81 Cal. Rptr. 457, 460 P.2d 129], and in People v. Edwards, 71 Cal.2d 1096, 1104 [80 Cal. Rptr. 633, 458 P.2d 713], our court held that the test to determine if there has been an illegal search is whether the person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy, and, if so, whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable governmental intrusion.... ( People v. Bradley, supra, 1 Cal.3d at p. 84.) (2) In this respect it is a well settled rule that in seeking to justify a seizure without a warrant, objects that are fully disclosed to the eye and hand of an officer who has a right to be where he is, are admissible. (See Mozzetti v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 699, 707 [94 Cal. Rptr. 412, 484 P.2d 84]; People v. Marshall, 69 Cal.2d 51, 57-58 [69 Cal. Rptr. 585, 442 P.2d 665].) Petitioner's reliance on Vidaurri v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal. App.3d 550, is misplaced as that case is clearly distinguishable from the instant case. In Vidaurri, a state Agriculture Department inspector went to a residence to inspect citrus trees for pests. When he found no one at home, he entered the enclosed backyard by opening an unlocked gate. He found no citrus pests but he did pick a leaf from a plant he thought was marijuana and turned it over to the local police department. Police officers went to the residence the next day and again found no one at home. At the side of the house they observed a freshly planted but wilted marijuana plant. They then entered the backyard through the gate and searched for and found marijuana plants which they removed and kept as evidence. The homeowners were charged with cultivating marijuana and one of them, after his arrest, made a statement to the effect he only grew the marijuana for his own use. The trial court denied a motion to suppress the evidence. In issuing the peremptory writ of mandate suppressing the evidence, the Court of Appeal found that the agriculture inspector's entry was illegal at the very outset and the evidence, which only came to light as the result of such illegality, was tainted and therefore inadmissible. The court did concede that Agricultural Code section 5023 was applicable in providing that The commissioner, whenever necessary, may enter and make an inspection of any premises, plant ... or thing in his jurisdiction, but held that this statute was subject to the limitations of sections 1822.50-1822.56 of the Code of Civil Procedure which permit inspection by a health (or building, fire, safety, etc.) inspector, only upon issuance of a warrant. (See Tellis v. Municipal Court, 5 Cal. App.3d 455, 458 [85 Cal. Rptr. 459]; Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 [18 L.Ed.2d 930, 87 S.Ct. 1727].) (1b) In the case at bar the officers observed the growing marijuana plants in plain view from the second floor bedroom of Mrs. Lovelace's house (a distance of approximately 40 feet) after receiving a complaint from Mrs. Lovelace. His observations were clearly legal and provided probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed. The view of the backyard was vulnerable to observation by any of petitioner's neighbors, in essence, open to public view. The 3 1/2- or 4-foot-high marijuana plants were in plain view, both to the neighbors and to the police officers. There was no violation of petitioner's reasonable expectation of privacy as required by Bradley and Edwards. Finally, in the instant case petitioner agreed to walking around to the back of the house with the officers. Her consent to this action would clearly seem to prevent her from complaining of the alleged illegal search. For the above reasons we have concluded that the officer's observations of the marijuana plants in petitioner's backyard made from an adjacent neighbor's home and the subsequent admittance to the yard with the consent of petitioner herself render the search legal.