Page 1
Warrantless Search of Tent Pitched on Sidewalk Was Lawful—Appeals Court
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Police had no need to obtain a warrant to search a tent pitched on a public sidewalk, Div. Six of the Court of Appeal for this district declared yesterday, upholding the drug-dealing conviction of a man who resided in the structure.
Justice Hernaldo J. Baltodano authored the unpublished opinion which rejects the contention of defendant Sheridan Maki that Los Angeles police violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The jurist wrote:
“Here we hold that a person invoking the Fourth Amendment who does not have permission to maintain a structure that illegally obstructs a public pedestrian sidewalk does not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, law enforcement is not required to obtain a warrant to search the structure.”
Tent Was Home
The tent, used by Maki as his abode, was situated in Hollywood, on a street off of Sunset Boulevard. It had been under surveillance for about a month when an informant was given $40 as “buy money.”
He approached the tent, announced his desire to make a purchase, and Maki struck his hand out, taking the cash, then slipping the informant what appeared to be methamphetamine.
Maki exited the tent, as ordered by an officer, was arrested, and the tent was searched. They found cash, scales, and methamphetamine.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Renée F. Korn denied a motion to suppress. That, Baltodano said, was a correct ruling.
He noted that Los Angeles Municipal Court(“LAMC”) §41.18 provides that “[n]o person shall obstruct a street, sidewalk, or other public right-of-way… by storing, using, maintaining, or placing personal property, within five feet of any operational or utilizable building entrance or exit.”
The jurist acknowledged that Maki had a subjective expectation of privacy but said that “Maki has not shown his expectation of privacy was objectively reasonable.”
No Reasonable Belief
Baltodano noted:
“His tent was illegally erected on a public sidewalk that was not intended for camping and was within five feet of exit doors in violation of LAMC section 41.18(a)(3). Maki presented no evidence that he had permission to erect a tent at this location. Nor does the evidence establish that Maki could reasonably believe doing so was lawful.”
He specified:
“Our holding is a limited one. There was no evidence that Maki had permission to erect a tent on a public pedestrian sidewalk that was not intended for camping, nor evidence that Maki could reasonably believe doing so was lawful. Thus, we conclude law enforcement officers were not required to obtain a warrant to search inside Maki’s tent.”
The case is People v. Maki, B339358.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company