Court Opinion

ID: 9748364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:00:41.938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:34.818056
License: Public Domain

CROSBY J., Dissenting.
“Round up the usual suspects!” These words, once as foreign to American justice as Casablanca is to Santa Ana, may *560become commonplace if today’s ill-advised decision ever becomes the law of the land.
My research has turned up no reported decision approving an otherwise illegal arrest merely because it turns out the arrestee has consented to probation searches. Nor would one expect to find one, since a “search condition must [ ] be interpreted on the basis of what a reasonable person would understand from the language of the condition itself . . . .” (People v. Bravo (1987) 43 Cal.3d 600, 607 [238 Cal.Rptr. 282, 738 P.2d 336].) No reasonable person would expect a waiver of the right to be free from searches and seizures without cause or warrant to include a waiver of the right to be free from illegal arrests. This court’s questionable opinion in People v. Viers (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 990 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 667] pushed the Fourth Amendment to the outer limit; now the majority simply erases it from the Constitution. Even in Bravo, the Supreme Court limited probation searches to “rehabilitative and reformative purposes of probation or other legitimate law enforcement purposes.” (People v. Bravo, supra, at p. 610.) Illegal arrests are not “legitimate law enforcement purposes.”
I would reverse.
Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied April 13, 1994. Mosk, J., and Kennard, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.