legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Mesiti
Defendant and appellant Mark Edward Mesiti filed a motion to traverse and quash two search warrants, arguing that an initial warrant lacked probable cause and was facially defective, and that the second was the fruit of the first. By the same motion, Mesiti sought to suppress drug-related evidence seized during the execution of the second warrant. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) The trial court denied Mesiti’s motion, and a jury then convicted Mesiti of manufacturing a controlled substance, methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a).) On appeal, Mesiti contends the trial court erred in denying his motion attacking the search warrants. We affirm the judgment.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale