Opinion ID: 1162628
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Hit List

Text: (1a) Defendant contends that the admission of the so-called hit list was error. Prior to trial, he moved to suppress the list as seized in the course of a warrantless search. The prosecution opposed the motion, effectively arguing, inter alia, that the list was lawfully seized in conjunction with the booking process. At the suppression hearing, the following facts were established. Upon defendant's arrest and booking at the Stanislaus jail following the Modesto liquor store robbery, several items, including an address book, were taken from his pockets by the police, inventoried, and placed in an envelope affixed with an inventory sheet. The next day, Stanislaus County authorities released defendant and the envelope to the custody of Detective Badiali of the Fresno Sheriff's Department. Detective Badiali testified that he received custody of defendant at the Stanislaus jail and signed for the property envelope without inventorying its contents, and then transported defendant to the Fresno jail for booking. Prior to booking and in preparation therefor, he opened the envelope to see if there was any contraband or narcotics, any money, that sort of thing, before I placed it with Mr. Hamilton's property in the Fresno County Sheriff's Department. He explained, I had signed for something and this information or these properties in Stanislaus County and hadn't really inventoried the items that were in the envelope. On opening the envelope he found the address book. As I went through the address book, I found a folded piece of paper that fell out of the address book. I unfolded it and saw names written on the address book on the page, separate page. He recognized the names and their evidentiary value, and turned the list over to the prosecution. The court ruled that the seizure of the hit list was lawful and denied the motion to suppress. Defendant claims that the court's ruling was erroneous. As we shall explain, the point must be rejected. (2) Warrantless searches are unreasonable per se, subject to only a few carefully circumscribed exceptions. ( People v. Dalton (1979) 24 Cal.3d 850, 855 [157 Cal. Rptr. 497, 598 P.2d 467], and cases cited.) A booking search  i.e., a search at the place of incarceration during the period of post-arrest detention (2 LaFave, Search and Seizure (2d ed. 1987) § 5.3(a), p. 477 (hereafter LaFave))  is well recognized as one of those exceptions. ( Illinois v. Lafayette (1983) 462 U.S. 640, 643-648 [77 L.Ed.2d 65, 69-73, 103 S.Ct. 2605]; People v. Ross (1967) 67 Cal.2d 64, 70 [60 Cal. Rptr. 254, 429 P.2d 606], revd. on other grounds sub nom. Ross v. California (1968) 391 U.S. 470 [20 L.Ed.2d 750, 88 S.Ct. 1850]; see generally 2 LaFave, supra, § 5.3(a), pp. 477-487.) Although variously stated in our opinions (see People v. Maher (1976) 17 Cal.3d 196, 200-201 [130 Cal. Rptr. 508, 550 P.2d 1044], and cases cited), the purposes of, and justifications for, such a search are promote jail security. The permissible scope of a booking search is broad: it may involve an item-by-item examination of everything in the arrestee's pockets or otherwise on his person, including looking into his wallet or into containers on the person; it may even extend to a strip search. (2 LaFave, supra, § 5.3(a), p. 482, fn. omitted; accord, Illinois v. Lafayette, supra, at pp. 646-647 [77 L.Ed.2d at p. 71].) (1b) In this case the evidence shows without dispute that Detective Badiali went through the items in the property envelope and found the hit list at the Fresno jail during the period of defendant's postarrest detention. Hence, the search was lawful and the list was properly seized. (See People v. Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57, 80-82 [241 Cal. Rptr. 594, 744 P.2d 1127].) Defendant argues that there was no justification for a booking search at the Fresno jail and hence no justification for Detective Badiali's action. We are not persuaded. Even though the Stanislaus authorities made an initial inventory, the Fresno jailers could properly have conducted their own to ascertain  in the interests of both jail security and the safeguarding of property  that the envelope in fact contained those items and only those items listed on the inventory sheet. [2] In conclusion, the admission of the hit list was not error.