Opinion
C081302
07-10-2017
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESUS MANUEL BRUNNER, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. CM043360)
After the trial court denied defendant Jesus Manuel Brunner's motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of a short-barreled shotgun (§ 33210) and unlawful use of personal identifying information (§ 530.5); defendant also pleaded guilty to providing false information to a law enforcement officer, a misdemeanor (§ 148.9, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of three years eight months in county jail.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. --------
Defendant now contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion. We will affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
The background is taken from the suppression motion hearing transcript. In July 2015 Deputy Sheriff Joseph Deal spoke to a complainant who told him there were squatters at a Windermere Lane house, she believed drugs had been sold, and she was concerned about the welfare of two children. District Attorney Investigator Tim Morris also reviewed a complaint that squatters with children had been frequenting the Windermere Lane address. Investigator Morris contacted child protective services, learned the ages of the children referenced in the complaint, and also learned there had been 14 referrals to child protective services regarding the children. Investigator Morris understood that the Windermere Lane owner was ill or deceased.
The next morning around 9:30 a.m. or 9:45 a.m. Deputy Deal, Investigator Morris, and other officers arrived at the Windermere Lane address to check on the children and the property. The officers noticed piles of carpet in the front yard and porch area and saw there were no curtains on the windows. The interior of the house was visible through the windows and Investigator Morris described the interior as cluttered with odds and ends rather than furniture. There were cobwebs over the entry. The front door handle was at a severe downward angle and did not lock. The back door was open. Both Deputy Deal and Investigator Morris believed the house had been abandoned by the owner, and Investigator Morris saw indicators of an unsafe environment.
Investigator Morris knocked on the front door and announced loudly many times, "Butte County Sheriff's Office." He directed anyone inside to come to the door but there was no response. Deputy Deal also announced "Sheriff's Office" and directed any occupants to come outside, but again there was no response.
At that point Deputy Deal saw someone quickly move inside the house. He informed the other officers and they entered the house. Deputy Deal explained they entered the house because the door was open, there was reason to believe there had been forced entry, and he saw someone inside. Investigator Morris said he believed it was possible children were inside.
The officers found defendant inside with two other adults.
The owner of the Windermere Lane house had been living in a convalescent home and later passed away. The owner's daughter-in-law had power of attorney and asked various people, including the owner's stepson, to check on the house. The daughter-in-law had received notice that there was a lot of traffic around the house and garbage piles outside. The stepson was one of the three individuals at the house when the officers entered. Defendant and his girlfriend were at the house with the stepson's permission.
The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence, finding that under the totality of the circumstances, the information known to the officers warranted further inquiry to address the possibility that someone inside the house required assistance or that the property needed protection.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his suppression motion.
Law enforcement officers are responsible for investigating criminal activity, but they are also tasked with performing community caretaking functions such as protecting property and helping members of the public. (Cady v. Dombrowski (1973) 413 U.S. 433, 441 [37 L.Ed.2d 706, 715]; People v. Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464, 467.) "In the performance of such functions, evidence of a crime may be discovered and then challenged in court, requiring a determination of the applicability of the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement." (People v. Madrid (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1053, fn. omitted.)
Here, however, the officers did not discover evidence of criminal activity during the initial entry. That is an important distinction in this case. Defendant's girlfriend was on searchable probation and defendant's motion to suppress was expressly limited to the initial entry into the house. On this record we conclude the trial court did not err in finding that the initial entry by the officers as part of their community caretaking functions did not violate the constitution.
Deputy Deal and Investigator Morris both reviewed complaints asserting there were squatters at the Windermere Lane address, with drug use and children present. Investigator Morris contacted child protective services and determined there had been 14 referrals regarding the referenced children. The Windermere Lane owner was ill or deceased.
Deputy Deal, Investigator Morris, and other officers went to the Windermere Lane address to check on the children and the property. Based on their personal observations, Deputy Deal and Investigator Morris believed the house was abandoned by the owner. They saw carpet piles and cobwebs outside and cluttered odds and ends rather than furniture inside. There were no curtains on the windows. The front door did not lock and the back door was open. Investigator Morris saw indicators of an unsafe environment.
Deputy Deal and Investigator Morris repeatedly announced the presence of the officers and directed anyone inside to come to the door, but there was no response. Then Deputy Deal saw someone quickly move inside the house.
At that point, the officers knew there was a quickly-moving individual inside a house that appeared to be abandoned and unsafe, and the individual was not responding to their directions to come to the door. The house in question had been the subject of reports that squatters and drugs were present and that a complainant was concerned for the safety of children. On this record the trial court did not err.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
/S/_________
MAURO, J. We concur: /S/_________
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J. /S/_________
DUARTE, J.