People v. Scott

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Dickson

    144 Cal.App.3d 1046 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that the odor of ether, one of many chemical ingredients required in the manufacture of methamphetamine, will not constitute probable cause for a warrantless entry

    Other California cases have upheld searches of automobiles based on the odor of contraband and corroborating circumstances coupled with the inherent exigency of the vehicle's mobility. (See, e.g., People v. Cook (1975) 13 Cal.3d 663, 667-669 [ 119 Cal.Rptr. 500, 532 P.2d 148]; People v. Weaver (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 926 [ 192 Cal.Rptr. 436]; 61 Met. News 72, p. 7 [warrantless search of interior of automobile predicated on odor of "PCP"]; People v. Scott (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d Supp. 8 [158 Cal.Rptr. 270]; cf. Wimberly v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 557 [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 641, 547 P.2d 417].) Still, it is a considerable step beyond Guidi or the automobile cases to sanction an initial intrusion into a home where the officer's sole claim of probable cause is his sense of smell.

  2. People v. Yuna

    112 Cal.App.3d 634 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 1 times

    Courts have found this "reasonable expectation of privacy" to exist in luggage ( Arkansas v. Sanders, supra, 442 U.S. 753), a locked footlocker ( United States v. Chadwick (1976) 433 U.S. 1 [ 53 L.Ed.2d 538, 97 S.Ct. 2476]), closed boxes ( People v. Dalton, supra, 24 Cal.3d 850), a tote bag ( People v. Minjares (1979) 24 Cal.3d 410 [ 153 Cal.Rptr. 224, 591 P.2d 514]), an electric blanket box ( People v. Musante (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 156, 158-159 [ 162 Cal.Rptr. 158]), an athletic bag ( Bell v. Superior Court (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 238 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 455], and a lunch box ( People v. Pace (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 199 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 811]). On the other hand, the requisite expectation of privacy deserving of constitutional protection was found wanting in a lidded soft drink cup ( People v. Diaz, supra, 101 Cal.App.3d at pp. 446-448), a paper bag ( People v. Fick, supra, 107 Cal.App.3d at pp. 895-896), and a cigarette box ( People v. Scott (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d Supp. 8, 11 [158 Cal.Rptr. 270]). (5b) We hold that in the present case there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in appellant's jacket, and therefore no justification for a warrantless search.

  3. People v. Fick

    107 Cal.App.3d 892 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)   Cited 12 times

    Other items, however, are not reasonably associated with an expectation of privacy, and containers whose primary use is something other than as repositories for personal effects do not normally raise reasonable expectations of privacy. ( Guidi v. Superior Court (1973) 10 Cal.3d 1, 10-14 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 684, 513 P.2d 908], paper shopping bag; People v. Diaz (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 440, 446-448 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 645], paper cup with lid; People v. Scott (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d Supp. 8, 11 [158 Cal.Rptr. 270], cigarette box.) At bench, defendant does not contest the validity of the stop and search of the vehicle, but contends that because he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the paper bag the deputies should have obtained a warrant before searching it.