Judge Declares Probation Search Illegal! – Sacramento County Case 21FE010281

Client had a strike prior, and was facing new felony firearms violations over a recent probation search. Officers discovered that client, a probationer, was not living at his disclosed address. They conducted a probation compliance search at client’s business, and located numerous guns and ammo. When confronted, client admitted to officers that he was aware of the contraband.

Client had a previous strike prior, and many other felony violations in his criminal history. When the case was filed, the district attorney wanted the defendant to admit the strike prior, and agree to a stipulated prison sentence of four years.

Friedman reviewed the case, and believe that the probation officer’s actions were illegal. This was due to a recent change in the law, which limited the maximum probationary term from 5 years down to 2 years. Given this very recent change in the law, Friedman argued that the search was outside of the newly imposed maximum period of probation, and was therefore illegal.

The Sacramento County District Attorney vigorously fought against Friedman’s position, and argued that a number of exceptions (I.E. “loopholes”) still justified the officer’s actions.

At the end of the day, the court sided with Friedman’s client. In an uncommon gesture, the court then drafted a written ruling to support the legal underpinnings of its decision to suppress the illegally obtained evidence. When confronted with the court’s ruling, the district attorney chose to dismiss the case, rather than appeal.

A big with for the client, who no longer needs to worry about what would have otherwise been a lengthy prison sentence.