Evidence Suppressed from 2nd Search After 1st One Improper
However, there are limits to such stretching of our Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.
In a Nutshell: A defendant has a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent once he invokes it, so any questioning which thereafter persists is illegal and all evidence obtained thereafter is illegal from the search based on the post-Miranda request to remain silent. The following summary involves a suspect found in the house of actress Sandra Bullock.
He was taken to the police station, where he invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent under Miranda. Police questioned him anyways and Corbett relented, eventually advising police of his address and his gun collection.
Police then went to his house and searched his house without a warrant and without his consent. They found guns and ammunition.
The following day, police obtained a warrant and went back to the house to search his gun safe, based upon his interrogation at the police station and the guns found during the first warrantless search. The warrant application did not include any assertion or any facts demonstrating a fair probability that evidence pertaining to the offenses of stalking or burglary would be found at Corbett’s house. In other words, it was a fishing expedition.
The case went to trial, at which time Corbett’s attorney moved to suppress the statements made during his police station interrogation (Fifth Amendment violations) and the evidence found during the first warrantless search of his house (Fourth Amendment violation). The trial court granted the motion to suppress.
The District Attorney filed a writ of mandate compelling the trial court to vacate its order granting the motion to suppress and to issue a new order denying the motion.
The Second Appellate District denied the writ (People v. Superior Court and Joshua James Corbett (2017 DJDAR 1397)).
The appellate court found that Corbett had unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent, meaning the Los Angeles Police Department had violated Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Once Corbett indicated he wanted to remain silent, “the interrogation must cease.” People v. Jackson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 269, 339. A statement obtained in violation of Miranda may not be admitted to establish guilt in a criminal case. Id. The court found “no dispute” that Corbett’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated.
The appellate court also found that the LAPD also violated the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable governmental searches and seizures. U.S. Const. 4th Amend; see also Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 8-9. While there are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, very few apply to the unambiguous dimensions of a person’s home. Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573 589. A search inside a home is presumptively unreasonable and thus, illegal.
The exclusionary rule prohibits introduction into evidence of tangible materials seized during an illegal search. Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652. Consequently, all evidence found in not only the first search, but the second search as well, was affirmed as ordered suppressed.
The People claimed that Corbett had consented to the search, but the appellate court found that this “consent” was elicited in violation of Corbett’s Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.
The appellate court’s ruling does not mean the case against Corbett would be dismissed. He remains a defendant on counts of first degree burglary and stalking.