The Case In the Court Below
Procedural History
Petitioner's Brief:
The People of the State of California Counsel: John K. Van De Kamp, Attorney General; Steve White, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Criminal Division; Eugene Kaster, Deputy Attorney General Respondent, Dante Carlo Ciraolo, was charged in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, by an information of August 8, 1983, with cultivating and selling marijuana. (Cal. Health & Safety Code, §§ 11358, 11360(a) (J. A. 43-44; C.T. 50.)
Ciraolo moved in the trial court to suppress evidence of the cultivation, contending that it was obtained by an unreasonable search and seizure. Specifically, he argued that police aerial observation of a marijuana garden within his home's fenced yard was an illegal search, and that evidence later seized from the property under a search warrant was suppressible fruit thereof. (C.T. 25-30.) The motion was submitted on the search warrant, the search warrant affidavit, (J.A. 4-15, 48-49; C.T. 40, 72) and the transcript of the preliminary hearing. (J.A. 16-42, 49-50; C.T. 72.) The motion was denied on August 30, 1983. (J.A. 65.) On October 4, 1983, Ciraolo withdrew his not guilty plea and entered a plea of guilty to cultivating marijuana conditional upon dismissal of the selling charge (C.T. 92; R.T. [Oct. 4, 1983]: 1-10.) On November 9, 1983, Ciraolo was granted probation for a period of three years. (C.T.; R.T. [Nov. 9, 1983]: 11-12.) On January 6, 1984, Ciraolo appealed to the California Court of Appeal, pursuant to California Penal Code section 1538.5(m), from the order denying his motion to suppress evidence. (J.A. 66-67.) On November 20, 1984, Division Five of the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reversed the judgment of conviction. Suppressing the evidence, the court held that the aerial observation was a warrantless search violating the Fourth Amendment. (Pet.App. A20.) The California Supreme Court denied a hearing over one justice's dissent. (Pet.App. C.) |
Respondent's Brief:
Dante Ciraolo Counsel: Marshall Warren Krause; Pamela Holmes Duncan Krause, Baskin, Shell, Grant & Ballentine Respondent does not provide a competing perspective
|
Kelly Koss & Melanie Matias | Persuasion Theory Spring 2015 | Chicago-Kent College of Law | Professor Godfrey
For educational purposes only.
For educational purposes only.