Court Opinion

ID: 9531985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:16:50.154463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:38.226689
License: Public Domain

TOBRINER, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting—I concur in the opinion of the majority that the marijuana and narcotics equipment found in Bradley’s house were seized in violation of Penal Code section 844, and must be excluded from evidence. The majority reach this conclusion in the following language: “Although section 844 codified the common law rule requiring peace officers to demand admittance and explain their purpose before they break open a door or window, the section is silent or inexplicit as to whether the officers must make such a demand and explanation before they enter a house through an open door. Even if at common law an unannounced intrusion through an open door was lawful, we are satisfied in view of the purposes of section 844, as stated in People v. Rosales ... 68 Cal.2d 299, 304, that the demand and explanation requirements of that section also apply where, as here, officers walk into a dwelling through an open door at nighttime when the occupant apparently is asleep.” (Ante, p. 87 [81 Cal.Rptr. 457, 460 P.2d. 129].) This language is unduly restrictive, and *90invites unnecessary litigation of cases involving daytime entries, and entries upon awakened or apparently awakened occupants.
Section 844 serves to protect the privacy of occupants (see Miller v. United States (1958) 357 U.S. 301, 313-314 [2 L.Ed.2d 1332, 1340-1341, 78 S.Ct. 1190]) and the safety of occupants, policemen, and bystanders (see People v. Rosales (1968) 68 Cal.2d 299, 304 [66 Cal.Rptr. 1, 437 P.2d 489].) I cannot accept the limiting language of the majority opinion in the light of these objectives: the intrusion upon privacy does not depend upon the time of day; an awake occupant is perhaps more likely to offer violent resistance than a sleeping one. In People v. Beamon (1968) 268 Cal.App. 2d 61, 64-65 [73 Cal.Rptr. 604], the Court of Appeal stated: “In our opinion an open door does not excuse noncompliance with section 844 unless noncompliance is otherwise excused under the rules declared in Rosales. Accordingly, a police officer may not enter through an open door of a house without first demanding admittance and explaining the purpose for which admittance is desired unless he reasonably and in good faith believes that such compliance would increase his peril, frustrate an arrest, or permit the destruction of evidence. We are persuaded to this conclusion by the purpose of section 844 as declared in Rosales and by the clear language of the section which does not restrict the required announcement to any particular type of entry by the police officers .... Moreover, if analogy to the law of burglary is required, we note that in California no breaking or fórceable entry is required in proof of the commission of a burglary . . . and, accordingly, that a burglary can be committed by entering through an open door or window.”
I believe that the Court of Appeal in Beamon correctly interpreted our decision in Rosales. I would therefore hold that the officers’ entry in the instant case violated section 844 not because they entered upon a sleeping occupant at night, but simply because there was neither substantial compliance with section 844 nor excuse for noncompliance.
I concur also in the majority’s reasoning that the protection of the Fourth Amendment is not limited to buildings, nor delimitated by common law definitions of the curtilage, but extends “wherever an individual may harbor a reasonable ‘expectation of privacy.’ ’’1 (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 9 [20 L.Ed.2d 889, 898, 88 S.Ct. 1868]); see Katz v. United States *91(1967) 389 U.S. 347, 361 [19 L.Ed.2d 576, 587, 88 S.Ct. 507] (concurring opinion of Harlan, J.), and p. 351 [19 L.Ed.2d at p. 581]; Britt v. Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 469 [24 Cal.Rptr. 849, 374 P.2d 817]; Bielicki v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 602 [21 Cal.Rptr. 552, 371 P.2d 288]; People v. Willard (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 292 [47 Cal.Rptr. 734]. I disagree, however, in the application of this reasoning to the marijuana plants offered in evidence.
The marijuana plants were located in a keg under a fig tree in a back yard which was entirely or partially fenced. They were not on a portion of the property open to the general public, nor to implied invitees such as mailmen, milkmen, trash collectors (compare People v. Edwards, supra, 71 Cal.2d 1096) and the like. They were implanted about 20 feet from defendant’s door and apparently could not be seen—or at least not seen clearly enough to be identified as marijuana—until the searcher approached to within a foot of the plants. The defendant could reasonably expect that members of the public calling at his residence would stay in the approximate vicinity of the door and pathway, would see only what can be seen from that viewpoint, and that the balance of the yard was private.2
The recent decision of the Ninth Circuit in Wattenburg v. United States (9th Cir. 1968) 388 F.2d 853, offers strong support for this position. In that case the defendant stole about 1,000 red fir trees from federal land and piled them about 35 feet behind his motel. Federal investigators cut cross-sections from nine stumps on the land, and without a valid warrant searched through the pile of trees to find the nine trees which matched the stumps. The court held the search unlawful, since it constituted “an intrusion upon what the resident seeks to preserve as private even in an area which, although adjacent to his home, is accessible to the public.” (P. 857.)
The grounds advanced in the majority opinion to distinguish this case appear insufficient. Although the 1,000 fir trees must have been highly conspicuous from the motel 35 feet away, no evidence in the instant case indicates whether the marijuana plants were visible from Bradley’s doorway. Despite the implication of the majority opinion, there is no evidence in Wattenburg that the nine trees were covered by other trees, or deliberately hidden by the defendant; one would assume they were not deliberately con*92cealed, since Wattenburg had no knowledge of which stumps the investigators would cross-section. The instant case is a stronger case for exclusion than Wattenburg: a motel is a more public place than a private walk, and in Wattenburg stolen property was visible from the place open to the public.
People v. Edwards, supra, 71 Cal.2d 1096, also supports defendant’s right to exclude the evidence. In that case we held a search of a trash can 2-3 feet from Edwards’s back door unlawful. Edwards’s trash can was covered, but such coverage was essential to insure its privacy since it was located where various members of the public would pass by, including, of course, the trash collector. Bradley’s plants were not covered, but such coverage was not essential to insure their privacy since the plants could not be recognized from any area open to the public. The key similarity is that in both cases evidence in the back yard of a residence was not visible from the doorstep, walkway, or other place where visitors might be. It was, in short, located in a place where it was relatively safe from public intrusion, or so the occupant could reasonably believe. The trash can cannot logically be distinguished from the marijuana plants.
This case does not deal with “open fields,” but with the yard adjacent to a private residence. (Compare Hester v. United States (1924) 265 U.S. 57 [68 L.Ed. 898, 44 S.Ct. 445].) The resident cannot reasonably expect privacy in those portions of the yard open to the public, or if not to the public, at least to a substantial number of people. (Compare People v. Terry, supra, 70 Cal.2d 410, permitting a search in the common garage of a large apartment building.) Nor can he expect privacy for things in plain sight from such public areas. (People v. Terry, supra, 70 Cal.2d 410; People v. Willard, supra, 238 Cal.App.2d 292.) But he can reasonably, and probably does, expect privacy for the remainder of the property. No evidence in this case shows that the marijuana plants could be seen until the officer left the area open to the public and approached to a point approximately one foot from the plants. Consequently, the evidence must be excluded.
Peters, J., and Sullivan, J., concurred.

The majority opinion in this ease, and that in People v. Edwards,_ proposes the test: “whether the person has exhibited a reasonable expectation of privacy.” (Ante, p. 84 [81 Cal.Rptr. 457, 460 P.2d 129]; People v. Edwards (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1096, 1104 [80 Cal.Rtpr. 633, 458 P.2d 713].) (Italics added.) Although there may be no significant difference between this language and “may harbor a reasonable expectation of privacy,” I prefer the latter language, because I wish to avoid any suggestion that the expectation of privacy must be demonstrated by an overt *91act of defendant, or that evidence that a defendant did or did not deliberately try to hide the item should be decisive.

An area not open to the public generally may be open to such a large number of persons that no one of them could reasonably expect privacy. Examples are the common hallways of apartments, or the apartment garage in People v. Terry (1969) 70 Cal.2d 410, 427 [77 Cal.Rptr. 460, 454 P.2d 36], which held 5 to 105 cars. An area open only to occupants of two adjoining residences, however, is still an area which may lend itself to a sense of privacy.