People v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
143 Cal. App. 4th 1183, 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831 (2006)
Facts
A university safety officer for Santa Clara University, Payne, observed Walker, a student, smoking marijuana outside of his dormitory. Walker notified Payne that the marijuana was for medicinal purposes and offered to show his room to Payne. Walker unlocked the door to his room and allowed Payne inside. While inside Walker’s room, Payne found four large bags of marijuana, $1,800 in cash, and several small plastic bags containing traces of marijuana. Payne contacted the Santa Clara Police Department. Police officers approached Walker’s dormitory room with Payne. Before they entered, the police officers asked whether Payne had received consent to search the room. Payne replied that he had received consent and also that consent was not necessary because Walker had signed a waiver in his Residence Housing Contract that gave university officials the right to enter the dormitory room without notice or student consent. Police entered the room and confiscated the marijuana and paraphernalia. Walker was charged with a drug crime. During his criminal proceedings, Walker filed a motion to suppress the evidence against him based on an illegal search and seizure. The trial court (defendant) suppressed the evidence, and the prosecuting attorney (plaintiff) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the suppression order.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Duffy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 708,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
