COURT WATCH: Judge Dismisses Charges, Finds Police Violated 4th Amendment Rights of Accused 

San Francisco Hall of Justice – Photo by David M. Greenwald

By Alicia Mayora Olivares and Seleste Richardson

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – An investigation that began with the alleged theft of cookies and jellies escalated to the possession of narcotics and a deadly weapon when SFPD officers—according to the judge—illegally searched the accused person and his belongings.

On Sept. 5, SF Police Officer Frank Chan said he arrived at a Safeway on Monterey Blvd. to find the accused detained for theft. Officer Chan told the court Safeway employees did not see the accused attempt to pay for his items.

Upon exiting the store, officers followed the accused and ordered him to open his backpack to search for said cookies and jellies. Upon further searching of his bag, officers found a suspected weapon and what officers believed to be 1.7 grams of meth.

Officer Chan was not present when the substance was tested but he filed a report for theft, possession of drugs, drug paraphernalia, and a deadly weapon anyway.

But, on Sept. 21, Judge Brendan Conroy held a preliminary hearing in San Francisco County Superior Court to determine whether the court would bring the charges against the accused to trial.

Deputy Public Defender Tatiana Howard argued there was no basis for detention and no warrant for the search.

Upon questioning by DPD Howard, Chan stated they “ordered” the accused to open his bag and then “pulled” the items from it. Not only did they search the accused’s belongings, but they also searched his person and found suspected narcotics “inside his pocket,” claimed Chan, who said he suspected the item to be narcotics because he had seen that substance before.

Officer Chan said he traveled to a station located in the Tenderloin neighborhood, where another officer tested the substance. Although Chan was not directly present during the time of testing, he still stated the substance tested positive for a narcotic.

Judge Conroy ruled what the police officers had done—the search—was a clear violation of the accused’s 4th Amendment rights and concluded the officer showed no warrant to search the accused person or belongings; therefore, the charges were dismissed.

Author

  • Vanguard Court Watch Interns

    The Vanguard Court Watch operates in Yolo, Sacramento and Sacramento Counties with a mission to monitor and report on court cases. Anyone interested in interning at the Courthouse or volunteering to monitor cases should contact the Vanguard at info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org - please email info(at)davisvanguard(dot)org if you find inaccuracies in this report.

    View all posts

Categories:

Breaking News Court Watch San Francisco Court Watch

Tags:

Leave a Comment