P. v. Lauri
*
A jury convicted Jaysun Lauri of possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (e); count 2), felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, former § 12021, subd. (a)(1); counts 7 and 13; all statutory references are to the Penal Code unless noted), possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a); count 9), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; counts 10 and 14), child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (a)); counts 11 and 12), and transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 15).[1] As to certain counts, the jury found Jaysun was personally armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (c)), and found he had suffered four prior drug convictions (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2, subd. (c)). The jury convicted Annalisa of possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a); count 9), possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 10), and child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (a); counts 11 and 12).
Defendants seek review of a sealed search warrant affidavit and in camera proceedings to ascertain whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to traverse and quash the search warrant, and unseal the affidavit. (See People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948 (Hobbs).) They also assert the trial court erred in applying the good faith exception to the warrant requirement. (United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897, 922-923.) Finally, Jaysun argues the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found in a briefcase during a vehicle stop. Annalisa also challenges several probation conditions as unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. For reasons expressed below, we modify the terms and conditions of Annalisa’s probation, and otherwise affirm the judgment.
Comments on P. v. Lauri