Rosemary Henderson Case Study

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Rosemary Henderson was arraigned in Yolo County Superior Court on May 30, 2016, for allegedly violation Health & Safety Code § 11379, subd. (a). Henderson pleaded not guilty and pursuant to Penal Code § 1538.5, moved to suppress the fruits of the search –the two baggies and the statements she made- arguing that the search of the trunk exceed the scope of any consent she had given. The trial court denied the motion. Henderson then withdrew her not guilty plea and pled guilty to the sale of a controlled substance. The trial court accepted the please, suspended imposition of sentence, and place Rosemary Henderson on probation for three years. Counsel for Henderson filed a timely Notice of Appeal with the California Court

Officer Raney asked Henderson “Can I just quickly check where you’re seated to make sure you’re okay?” The search in the car lasted several minutes when Officer Raney stated that he was only going to search “quickly.” Henderson complied, knowing that Officer Raney was going to search “quickly” in the car. The length of search became an issue in Cantor, when Officer Weizoerick requested for a “real quick” “check” of Cantor’s car. After Cantor gave consent to have his car searched, Officer Weizoerick proceeded to search in the car for almost 15 minutes. The Court of Appeals stated that the search should have ended because “a typically reasonable person would not have understood defendant’s consent to ‘real quick’ search.” Based on the analysis in Cantor, the search in Henderson’s car lasted longer than what would be considered “quickly.” The ecstasy found in the car should have been suppressed as evidence against Henderson because it did not meet the test of objective reasonableness. Officer Raney never specified that he was searching for drugs in the car. Officer Raney asked Henderson “Can I just quickly check where you’re seated to make sure you’re okay?” Based on the objective reasonableness test, a reasonable person would not have any clue that drugs would be the reason for a

Officer Raney did not ask Henderson if he could search for drugs in her car, thus she was unlawfully charged on Cal. Health & Safety Code § 11379. Subd. (a). Based on the scenario in Crenshaw, Officer Randolph asked the driver directly if he “had any drugs in the vehicle” and whether he could search “for drugs.” In Bell, Officer David asked the driver if he had any cocaine in his car. The driver replied with a “no” and did not allow Officer David to search the car. In Cantor, Officer Werzoerick, also followed the same protocol as the previous officers by asking Cantor “Nothing illegal in the car or anything like that? Mind if I check ‘real quick’ and get you on your way?” As a result, the defendant gave permission to Office Werzoerick to search the car knowing that they were going to search for