People v. Krohn
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
IKOLA, J.
Defendant Phillip Anthony Krohn challenges his conviction for possession for sale of a controlled substance and possession of marijuana. He contends the court wrongly denied his motion to suppress the evidence related to the drugs because the police acquired the evidence as the result of an illegal detention. We agree..The officer detained defendant because he suspected defendant was illegally drinking alcohol in a public place, but the suspicion was unreasonable. Defendant was detained inside his gated apartment complex, which was not readily accessible to the public. Thus,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Wong Sun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Florida v. RoyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- United States v. SokolowSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- People v. FranklinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. Martinez-GonzalezIdaho Court of Appeals · 2012
- People v. StriderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- In re J.A. CA1/5California Court of Appeal · 2021
- People v. KasrawiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
- People v. MAIKHIOCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010