Oxnard Police Dispute Privacy Ruling

Despite a contrary ruling by the California Supreme Court, Oxnard police said Friday that officers responding to a loud-party complaint acted properly when arresting a south Oxnard man in 1997 after they saw him bagging cocaine in his bedroom through a sideyard window.

Police said they want state prosecutors to appeal Thursday’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify how far officers can go in searching homes without violating a person’s 4th Amendment right to privacy.

State high court justices decided 4 to 3 to overturn the conviction of Cayetano Camacho, now 28, who pleaded guilty to possessing drugs for sale after an officer entered his south Oxnard sideyard without first knocking on the front door.

Four justices rejected prosecutors’ arguments that a search warrant was not necessary because Camacho’s sideyard was not fenced and his window had no shade or blind.

“I think the officers acted properly, but there is a gray area,” said Stan Myers, deputy police chief in Oxnard. “I agree with the dissenting justices, who argue this is something that should be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court to give us a better understanding of how far is far enough in protecting the people we serve.”

Myers said he does not expect the Police Department to change its patrol or search procedures based on the decision--”not until we get some sort of guidance from the U.S. Supreme Court.”

But a defense lawyer said the Oxnard force ought to change guidelines immediately, because the state high court’s ruling is law in California.

“The law is clear,” said Todd Howeth, appeals attorney in the county public defender’s office. “They are not allowed to invade people’s privacy and peek through their windows. I understand they’re not happy with the ruling, but they must comply with the rule of law.”

Similar searches by Oxnard police could jeopardize other cases, Howeth said.

In the Camacho case, patrol officers Erik Mora and James Wood answered an anonymous call about a loud party on the 1400 block of Date Street. They found no party at Camacho’s house, but reported that they heard a noise at the side of the house. Mora directed Wood to check it out, Myers said. The officers did not knock on the front door first.

“It’s a safety issue, an issue of finding out what’s going on first,” Myers said. “It’s an ominous area you’re walking into. You don’t want to knock on the door thinking you know what’s going on, and maybe you don’t. It’s sort of like a traffic stop. It’s a situation where a lot of officers lose their lives.”

Had Camacho’s sideyard been fenced, the officers would have been unable to enter without a warrant, Myers said.

“If it had been somewhere that was obviously posted as private or where there was an expectation of privacy, I could understand the court’s ruling,” Myers said. “But there was no fence, the window was open and he was sitting there processing cocaine.”

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that it was reasonable for Camacho to expect that no one would trespass on his property late at night and look into his bedroom window, which could not be seen from the street.

The three justices who dissented complained that the court was imposing a “narrow and rigid restraint on police.”

The split ruling overturned a decision by Ventura County Judge Herbert Curtis III, who refused to suppress evidence gained through the sideyard entry. Curtis ruled that police had acted legally, because the window had no blinds and anyone outside could easily peer in.

Camacho, who is on probation, pleaded guilty, but defense lawyers appealed.

The Supreme Court ruled for Camacho because of the lateness of the hour of the phone-in complaint, the lack of seriousness of the suspected offense and the officers’ failure to knock on his door.

They also found that the absence of blinds on Camacho’s window did not mean he should not expect privacy in his bedroom.

“Most persons, we believe, would be surprised, indeed startled, to look out their bedroom window at such an hour to find police officers standing in their yard looking back at them,” Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote for the majority.

Myers said it is the court’s job to “refine the parameters we work in. Sometimes, they’re disappointing. We adjust and move forward.”