People v. Hoeninghaus
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RUSHING, P. J.
INTRODUCTION
The Fourth Amendment proscribes all unreasonable searches and seizures, and it is settled that warrantless searches are per se unreasonable unless they come within an established exception to the warrant requirement. (Mincey v. Arizona (1978) 437 U.S. 385, 390 [57 L.Ed.2d 290, 98 S.Ct. 2408].) A search by police under an adult probationer’s search condition comes within an exception. (See People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668, 674-675 [88 Cal.Rptr.2d 88, 981 P.2d 1019].) In this case, we hold that the exception is inapplicable if police are unaware of the…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Schneckloth v. BustamonteSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Griffin v. WisconsinSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- United States v. KnightsSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- People v. Jaime P.California Supreme Court · 2006
- People v. RomeoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- People v. DurantCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- People v. MooreCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- People v. WatkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.