California Court of Appeal

Defendants' respective convictions for cultivation of marijuana and possession of marijuana for sale, are affirmed where: 1) the trial court was correct in finding the area of the defendant's property searched on two occasions falls outside the curtilage of that property, and the court did not err in denying defendants' motion to suppress on that ground; 2) the use of the night vision goggles by an officer on defendant's property did not constitute a "search" in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and 3) the trial court properly denied the motion to quash the warrant as the search of the defendant's property was not an illegal warrantless search, and the trial court properly denied defendants' motion to traverse.

Appellate Information

• Decided 12/14/2010
• Published 12/14/2010

Judges

• RUVOLO

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Michael O’Flannigan, Edmund G. Brown Jr.