Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 05WF3313, Daniel Barrett McNerney, Judge.
Robert V. Vallandigham, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, James D. Dutton and Sabrina Y. Lane-Erwin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Sills, Acting P. J., Fybel, J., and Ikola, J.
Following the denial of his motion to suppress, appellant Michael Armando Omara pled guilty to misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. He then pled not guilty to one count of receiving stolen property, but the jury found otherwise. The trial court sentenced him to eight years in prison: the upper term on the receiving stolen property count and one year each for two prison priors. On appeal, Omara challenges the denial of his suppression motion.
I
The facts from the suppression hearing are undisputed. Omara’s girlfriend, Wendy Palm, was on probation. As a condition of probation she had agreed to the standard search condition. The police had obtained information that “criminal activity” was taking place at Omara’s residence and were surveilling it. They checked with “probation” which confirmed Palm had agreed to a search condition and had put down Omara’s address as her “address of record.” They checked with the Department of Motor Vehicles whose records also showed her at this address.
The police went to the residence and spoke with Omara who was in the garage. He initially denied Palm lived there; he later changed his story, saying she lived there “off and on,” had slept there “last night,” and had just left 20 minutes earlier. The police then searched the garage, the backyard, and the residence. In the garage they found a drug pipe which is used to smoke methamphetamine, and in the backyard they found a stolen vehicle covered with a tarp.
II
Omara argues the probation search was illegal because the police had no evidence from which they could conclude Palm had sole or joint custody over the garage or the backyard. He asserts Palm did not live there and they should have asked him questions to elicit additional information as to whether she had sole or joint control over those areas before they conducted a warrantless search. The failure to make further inquiry requires means the warrantless search was unreasonable and the judgment must be reversed. We disagree.
The California Supreme Court has held that an objectively justified search of jointly occupied premises where one of the cotenants is subject to a probation search condition does not violate the Fourth Amendment. “[W]hether the purpose of the [probation] search is to monitor the probationer or to serve some other law enforcement purpose, or both, the search [is reasonable if it] remains limited in scope [] to those areas of the residence over which the probationer is believed to exercise complete or joint authority. [Citations omitted.]” (People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668, 681; see Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) 497 U.S. 177, 188-189.) In assessing whether the officers held an objectively reasonable belief sufficient to justify the search, the reviewing court independently reviews the facts of the case. (People v. Woods, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 681-682.)
We conclude from our independent review of the record that the police had an objectively reasonable belief Palm exercised joint control over the common areas of the residence including the garage and the backyard. Palm gave this address to the authorities as her address of record in order to secure probation, and she gave this address to the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to secure a driver’s license. Although Omara initially denied Palm lived there, he later conceded she lived there off and on and had slept there the night before. From these objective facts the police could conclude Palm had joint access to, and enjoyed mutual use of, the premises. Thus, they did not have to make any further inquiries of Omara before conducting a probation search of the common areas.
III
The judgment is affirmed.