Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. TA083337
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION DENYING REHEARING
THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on May 22, 2008, be modified in the following particulars:
1. On page 2, the first full paragraph that begins "On the morning of February 2, 2006" is modified to read as follows:
On the morning of February 2, 2006, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers searched appellant's residence located at 1704 East 114th Street (1704) in Los Angeles pursuant to a warrant issued earlier that morning. The warrant authorized the search of the family residence at 1704 and a garage located at 1706 East 114th Street (1706) for marijuana, related paraphernalia, indicia of control, and evidence of street gang membership. The garage was the only structure located at 1706. The residence at 1704 appeared to be connected with another residence located at 1702 East 114th Street (1702) by a common garage. The warrant also gave contingent authority to search 1702 "if during the service of the search warrant, [officers] discover there is direct access from 1704 East 114th Street to 1702 East 114th Street from the common garage. Or, in the event [officers] discover [that] persons inside of 1704 East 114th Street have keys, mail, or other evidence linking them, or showing them to have access to 1702 East 114th Street."
2. On page 2, in the sixth sentence of the second full paragraph, delete "of 1706" so the sentence reads:
Among appellant's personal belongings were keys to the front and rear doors of 1704 and keys to the garage doors.
3. On page 3, in the third sentence of the third paragraph, delete "1702" and insert "1706" so the sentence reads:
LAPD sources listed appellant's current address as 824 West 120th Street, but showed his prior address as 1706 in 2003.
4. On page 4, in the fourth sentence of the second full paragraph, delete "he and his partner" and insert "other officers" so the sentence reads:
According to Mrakich, other officers "conducted a pre-text traffic stop on the car" and detected a strong odor of marijuana.
5. On page 7, the second full paragraph that begins "The freshness of information" is modified to read as follows:
The freshness of information is one of the factors which determine whether there is probable cause to support issuance of a warrant. (People v. Hernandez (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 581, 586.) No clear cut rule determines when the time span must be deemed too attenuated. (Alexander v. Superior Court (1973) 9 Cal.3d 387, 393.) In Alexander, information that defendant kept a stash of narcotics at her former residence one year previously was not sufficiently fresh to support issuance of a warrant to search her current residence. In appellant's case, the information was more recent. In the week of January 13, 2006, officers observed traffic at 1704 consistent with the sale of narcotics. In the week of January 16, 2006, appellant's truck was parked outside 1704 in the early morning hours. On January 23, 2006, officers saw appellant entering 1704, the garage and McGee's car. On January 30, 2006, Barnett purchased a large quantity of marijuana from appellant at 1704. On February 2, 2006, the warrant was issued and executed. The information was sufficiently timely to support the belief that evidence of narcotics transactions was still on the premises.
Respondent's petition for rehearing is denied.
There is no change in judgment