The Old Sacramento Bridge

Limits on Privacy Expectation for Warrantless Entry by Police

A ruling by a California appellate court places some significant limits on people's expectation of privacy regarding police searches of residences. The bottom line is that a person who enters the residence of an acquaintance with the purpose of evading the police cannot claim a right to privacy that would bar warrantless entry by law enforcement.

The case of People v. Magee concerns Deemario Bomone Magee, who in 2008 was walking in a Vallejo neighborhood known by police to have narcotics trafficking. Police officers were on a stake out looking for signs of drug deals when they saw Magee - suspected by police of being a drug dealer - approach a car that was moving along the street. The officers left their unmarked vehicle to question Magee. When Magee saw the officers coming toward him, he ran into a nearby house, which was the residence of an acquaintance of Magee's. The officers followed Magee into the house and found him in the bathroom flushing down the toilet material that looked like cocaine base. After gathering evidence from Magee's vehicle, the police charged Magee with numerous violations, including possession for sale of cocaine base.

At trial, one of the residents of the house testified that Magee visited the house socially two or three times each week and that she had told Magee he could enter the house without knocking and use the bathroom. Magee and his attorneys argued that because of this understanding, Magee should have an expectation of privacy when he entered the house and that the police officers' entry and search should be held invalid. If the police wanted to talk with him, Magee argued, they needed to first obtain a warrant.

Though the trial court agreed with this reasoning, the appellate court disagreed. Because Magee entered the house after he saw the police coming toward him - and apparently for the purpose of evading them - he could not claim an expectation of privacy. He went into the house to get away from the police, not to socialize with house's occupants. Therefore, the police did not need to first obtain a warrant.

Search and seizure law in California can be complicated. If you have questions about a search conducted by law enforcement, call me at 916-442-1200 for a free and confidential consultation.

Client Reviews
Nancy King was patient, persistent, and polite. She followed up and kept me informed, took a lot of the stress off of me. She was very instrumental in eventually getting the case against me dismissed. It was money well spent. Linda
My son's case involved felony theft and drug charges. We were thrilled when Nancy was able to obtain a dismissal on all charges. My son's now back on track with his career. Nancy is the kind of attorney who fights hard for her clients and actually cares about them. I recommend her highly. Shawn M.
Nancy King represented me on a DUI. I was involved in an accident and had a blood alcohol level of .13/.14. Nancy King kept pushing in the negotiation process. She was able to get me a wet reckless. Nancy King is someone you can trust. She knows what she's doing and works hard for her clients. I recommend her highly. D.V.
I was wrongfully targeted by the police for a felony offense. Nancy took care of everything for me and got the police to realize that they had made a mistake. Everything was handled promptly and professionally and I was able to protect my reputation. D.B.