WPCpP ?6Tz5eGkYsLeGWӵ?\ՍAnW ̙T>&?KOr&[°Wf71^"̴tG_HFĈӎ|fc念͊l;Q%ot\Pl>qug)0DGp b>~ٺce}nz9!ąA7Ǵk\gZ\lW Få1kVw׽KN yyGFQK);cY Kh/f^ݢ^ I)*uNhWx.t>S:ZmB\8؃ #Dƍа(1n.N">#J5GUGWnf\ r􀥋Ҏ+vME ߲v&{z(!1v9NLʩiauS%I)b 0T 0* 0 0 0 0% 0 0 0 0w 0y 0) 0< 0N 0aA 0 0| 0+ 0 0 0o 05 0 0U!:u % 0z 0/  0= 0 F6 0P| 1 0_! 1 " 0#$ 0C'E' 7'  ( 0-*5(UN_( 0C(Z(J* \ +e+ 0v4, 1,a-nq- 0(v3 B3#3N6^ 6w6466 m6U!@6 h7k7 N!8 o88 8B9$z9 x: h;O~; z<G= zZ> j>>? zV@ j@:A zOBB zC j[DDD z F?F zG jXyXXX>BX>Xy28U.S.C.1257(a)#>B##XQKX:#.28 U.S.C.  1257(a).UNITED STATES STATUTES 5!  >XyXXX>BX>Xysection1538.5,subdivision(a)(1)(A)#>B##XQKX:#(-!2W$ 5!  Ӏ  0    CRight ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)#|Q <6X9`("Courier 10cpiXx6X@87X@* `(CG TimesScalableXXw P7XP+_ 0CG TimesBoldScalableXXz_ p^7X+_ 0CG TimesBoldScalable_ p^7)&_ `4CG TimesItalicScalableXXu&_ x$&7XX*&_ >CG TimesBold ItalicScalableXXx&_ xM7X) `(CG TimesScalablelableablec P7P*&_ >CG TimesBold ItalicScalabled&_ xM7)&_ `4CG TimesItalicScalableableb&_ x$&7X($ dBrother MFC-6800 USB,,,,,,,,0%H= m5m5( U(9 Z(Times New Roman 0section 1538.5, subdivision (a)(1)(A) PENAL CODE 5!  >XyXXX>BX>Xysection11378#>B##XQKX:#@section 11378HEALTH AND SAFETY CODEsection 11378 5!  >XyXXX>BX>Xysection1538.5#>B##XQKX:#Csection 1538.5PENAL CODE  5!  _>X3GXXX>,X>X3GFloridav.J.L.,529U.S.266,146_L.Ed_.2d254,120S.Ct.1375(2000)#lY>,+##XRXlYJ#E Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 146 L.Ed.2d 254, 12CASES Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 146 L.Ed.2d 254, 12 E 5!  _>X3GXXX>,X>X3GWongSunv.UnitedStates,445U.S.573,    [63_L.Ed_.2d639,100S.Ct.1371](1980)#lY>,.##XRXlYM#HWong Sun v. United States, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 590, 6CASES  5!  >XyXXX>BX>XyStonev.Powell,428U.S.465    [49L.Ed.2d1067,96S.C.3037](1976)#>B##XQKX=#JStone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067, 96 SCASESStone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067, 96 S  5!  >XyXXX>BX>XyMarylandv.Buie,494U.S.325    [108L.Ed.2d276,110S.Ct.1093](1990)#>B##XQKX=#MMaryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 108 L.Ed.2d 276, 110CASESMaryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 108 L.Ed.2d 276, 110  5!  >XyXXX>BX>XyWelshv.Wisconsin466U.S.740    [80L.Ed.2d732,104S.Ct.2091](1984)#>B##XQKX=#PWelsh v. Wisconsin 466 U.S. 740, 748, 80 L.Ed.2d 732CASES  5!  >XyXXX>BX>XyPaytonv.NewYork,445U.S.573    [63L.Ed.2d639,100S.Ct.1371](1980)#>B##XQKX=#RPayton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 589-590, 63 LCASESPayton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 586, 589-590, 63 L : 5!  _>X3GXXX>,X>X3GYbarrav.Illinois,444U.S.85    [62_L.Ed_.2d238,100S.Ct.338#lY>,.#]()#XRXlYM#UYbarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85, 62 L.Ed.2d 238, 100CASES 5 5!  _>X3GXXX>,X>X3GTerryv.Ohio,392U.S.1    [20_L.Ed_.2d889,88S.Ct.1868](1968)#lY>,.##XRXlYM#WTerry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct. CASESTerry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 88 S.Ct.  5!  _>X3GXXX>,X>X3GFourthAmendment#lY>,+##XRXlYJ#Z4thUNITED STATES STATUTES4th ? 5!  _FourteenthAmendment]14thUNITED STATES STATUTES 5!  >XyXXX>BX>XyFourteenthAmendment#>B##XQKX:#_Fourteenth AmendmentUNITED STATES STATUTES  5!  >XyXXX>BX>XyIllinoisv.Gates,462U.S.213    [76L.Ed.2d527,103S.Ct.2317](1983)#>B##XQKX=#aIllinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 227, 76 L.Ed.2d 527CASESpage page chapter volume footnote endnote (T$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# (hJ$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#   de*U.S. CONSTITUTIONS*California Constitution*EDUCATION CODE*EVIDENCE CODE*HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE*PENAL CODE*VEHICLE CODE*WELFARE AND INSTITUTIONS CODE*RULES*INSTRUCTIONS*OTHER*STATUTES AND RULES 5!  _>XnXXX>XX>Xn  @00)No.򀀀@@2򀀀  @;Inthe  Ѐ@p p -SUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES  @>@II2򀀀     BENJAMINCAMARGO,JR.,Petitioner,     @=v.   @  ,THESTATEOFCALIFORNIA,Respondent.   @II2򀀀   @ (OnPetitionforaWritofCertioraritothe  @ )CourtofAppealoftheStateofCalifornia,  @# # +FourthAppellateDistrict,DivisionTwo  @II2򀀀  @: : .PETITIONFORAWRITOFCERTIORARI  @II2򀀀   `     h   CarmelaSimoncini   `     h   CocounselofRecord   `     h   CaliforniaStateBarNo.86472    `     h   CynthiaM.Sorman "  `     h   CounselofRecord #  `     h   CaliforniaStateBarNo.122289 $   `     h   555WestBeechStreet,Suite300 &""  `     h   SanDiego,CA92101 '##  `     h   619.696.0282 ($$  `     h   AttorneysforPetitioner *&&  `     h   BenjaminCamargo +''   ,((   @5  QUESTIONSPRESENTED     `  ` 1.0 Whetherprobablecausetobelieveacrimehasbeencommitted  mustexistpriorto,andindependentlyof,anyexigent   circumstancesusedtojustifyawarrantlessentryofahome,or   whethertheofficersbeliefthatexigentcircumstancesexist,    standingalone,constitutesanexceptiontothewarrant   requirement. h     ` 2.0 Whetherpolicemayuseuncorroboratedinformanttipstomake  awarrantlessentryofahomebasedonexigentcircumstances  andsearchtheresident,wherethetipsdonotestablishprobable  causetobelieveacrimehasbeencommittedordonotprovide  specificfactsregardingtheresidenttoreasonablysuspecthehas  committedacrimeorisarmedanddangerous.           LISTOFPARTIES      0 ` Allpartiesappearinthecaptionofthecaseonthecoverpage.` `      8BXXdXXd8@uu; INTHE  @  -SUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES  @ /PETITIONFORWRITOFCERTIORARI      ` Petitionerrespectfullypraysthatawritofcertiorariissuetoreviewthe   judgmentbelow.   @##7  OPINIONSBELOW  u     ` Theopinionofthehigheststatecourttoreviewthemeritsappearsat  AppendixAtothepetitionandisunpublished.   ` TheorderoftheSupremeCourtofCaliforniasummarilydenying  reviewappearsatAppendixBtothepetitionandisunpublished.   @8  JURISDICTION  /Ԉ   ` Thedateonwhichthehigheststatecourtdecidedmycasewas  November15,2006.AcopyofthedecisionappearsatAppendixA.   ` ThejurisdictionofthisCourtisinvokedunder / 28U.S.C.1257(a).    @N N 0  CONSTITUTIONALANDSTATUTORY  @5PROVISIONSINVOLVED     @, , 1 UNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTION    \ FourthAmendment   8 ` Therightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,   papersandeffects,againstunreasonablesearchesandseizures,   shallnotbeviolated,andnowarrantsshallissue,butupon    probablecause,supportedbyoathoraffirmation,and   particularlydescribingtheplacetobesearched,andthepersons   orthingstobeseized. ` x` x  ` FourteenthAmendment,section1   8 ` AllpersonsbornornaturalizedintheUnitedStatesandsubject  tothejurisdictionthereof,arecitizensoftheUnitedStatesand  ofthestatewhereintheyreside.Nostateshallmakeorenforce  anylawwhichshallabridgetheprivilegesorimmunitiesof  citizensoftheUnitedStates,norshallanystatedepriveany  personoflife,liberty,orproperty,withoutdueprocessoflaw;  nordenytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequal  protectionofthelaws.` x` x @: STATUTES   CaliforniaPenalCodes, ? section1538.5,subdivision(a)(1)(A)AppendixD  8 ` Adefendantmaymoveforthereturnofpropertyortosuppress   asevidenceanytangibleorintangiblethingobtainedasaresult ! ofasearchorseizureoneitherofthefollowinggrounds:"` x` x 8 ` (A)Thesearchorseizurewithoutawarrantwasunreasonable.#` x` x CaliforniaHealth&SafetyCode, A section113780  0   AppendixE% !    8 ` ...[E]verypersonwhopossessesforsaleanycontrolled '"# substance...shallbepunishedbyimprisonmentinthestate (#$ prison.8` x` x )$%  @[[4  STATEMENTOFTHECASE     Y ` PolicewerelookingforaparoleeatlargenamedCox.Unknown  informantssuppliedpolicewithvaryinginformationthatCoxwasseenator   aroundpetitionersresidence,ordrivingatruckinthearea.Usingthis   informationpoliceknockedonpetitionersdoorand,whenheanswered,    pushedhimbackwards,enteredtheresidence,spunhimaroundandsearched   him.Drugswerefound. h     ` Petitionersoughttosuppresstheevidencefoundasaresultofthe  searchunderCaliforniaPenalCode D section1538.5.AppendixD.Indenying  thesuppressionmotion,thetrialcourtfoundthatofficershadnospecific  informationthatpetitionerhadcommittedanycrimeorwasarmedand  thereforenoreasonablesuspiciontopathimdown.However,thetrialcourt  heldthatconsentgivenaftertheillegalfriskwasnottaintedbytheinitial  illegality.Petitionerthereafterpledguiltytopossessionofmethamphetamine  forsale(Cal.Health&Saf., B 11378).AppendixE. !  ` Petitionerappealeddenialofthesuppressionmotion.OnAugust8, # 2006,theCaliforniaCourtofAppeal,FourthDistrict,DivisionTwo,affirmed % ! thetrialcourtsdenialofthemotiontosuppress,butnotforthesamereasons '"# givenbythetrialcourt.Withrespecttothewarrantlessentryandsearch,the )$% majorityfoundtheofficersactionsjustifiedbyexigentcircumstances. +&' Therefore,theinitialpatdownwaslegalandtheensuingconsentvalid.  AppendixA,p.18.   ` Apetitionforrehearingwasfiled.ItwasdeniedonAugust29,2006.  AppendixB.    ` OnNovember15,2006theCaliforniaSupremeCourtsummarilydenied   review,withKennard,J.,beingoftheopinionthepetitionshouldbegranted.   AppendixC.    @X X .  REASONSFORGRANTINGTHEPETITION  & 0 x x x   ` Petitionerhadnocriminalconvictionsbeforethiscase.Hewasalone  inhishomewhenpolice,actingonuncorroboratedinformanttipsregardinga  paroleeatlarge,Cox,pushedpetitionerbackwardsintohisresidencewhenhe   answeredthedoor.Withoutspeaking,theyfriskedhim.Despitethelackof   urgencyforfindingCox(policehadbeenlookingforCoxforawhile)and   withoutreasontobelievepetitionerharboredorsupportedCox,policeviolated   petitionerssecurityandrighttobefreefromunreasonableintrusionand   search.   ` Thetrialcourtheldtheinitialpatdownillegalbecausepolicelacked  reasonablesuspicionpetitionerwascommittingacrime.Thus,ithadno  occasiontoconsiderthereliabilityoftheinformanttippursuantto F ԀFloridav.  J.L.,529U.S.266,146L.Ed.2d254,120S.Ct.1375(2000).TheCourtof  Appeal,recognizingthatthetrialcourtsfindingtheinitialpatdownwasillegal  necessarilyvitiatedtheconsentobtainedfrompetitionerafterthefrisk( I Wong   Sunv.UnitedStates,445U.S.573,586,590,63L.Ed.2d639,100S.Ct.1371 " (1980)),foundthetrialcourterredinholdingthepatdownillegal.Insodoing, $  themajorityfailedtoevaluatethecorroborationrequirementsetforthin &!"  G Floridav.J.L.,supra,529U.S.266.TheCourtofAppealheldtheentryand  (#$ friskwerejustifiedbyexigentcircumstancesandconcernsforofficersafety.  AppendixA,pp.1215,17.   ` PetitionersoughtbypetitionforrehearingtohavetheCourtofAppeal  discussthereliabilityoftheinformanttipunder G Floridav.J.L.andtohavethe   matterremandedforafullandfairhearingonthismatterunder K Stonev.   Powell,428U.S.465,49L.Ed.2d1067,96S.C.3037(1976).Thecourt   deniedrehearing.AppendixB.    ` Thiscaseraisesimportantrecurringquestionsregardingwhether  probablecausetobelieveacrimehasbeencommittedmustexistfirstand  independentlyoftheexigentcircumstancesusedtojustifyawarrantlessentry,  orwhetherexigentcircumstancesaloneconstituteanexceptiontothewarrant  requirement.Further,thecasepresentsimportantquestionsregardingthe  requirementthatofficerscorroborateanonymoustipspriortoeffectinga  patdownsearchofaperson,andwhethersuchtipsareeversufficienttoallow  policetofrisksomeonethoughttoassociatewiththepersonwhoisthesubject   ofthetips.Finally,itraisescriticalissuesregardingthecircumstancesunder " whichofficersmayrelysolelyonexigentcircumstancestoeffectawarrantless $  entryandsearch,absentanyprobablecausetoenterorreasonablesuspicion &"" tofrisktheresident.  ($$   A.0 ` TheWarrantlessEntryandPatdownofPetitioner. ` `    5 ` Asnotedinthedissent,itisimportanttounderstandthefactspreceding  thewarrantlessentryofpetitionerstrailerandthepatdownsearchof  petitioner.AppendixA.,diss.op.ofGaut,J.,p.1.Ontheeveningof   December5,2003,DeputyMarcCloutieroftheRiversideCountySheriffs   Departmentandhispartnerknockedonthedoortopetitionerstrailerhome.   Theyhadreceivedanonymoustipsthataparoleeatlarge,RoyCox,mightbe   inthehomeorinthe area.Nooneansweredthedoor.Thedeputieswent   toahouselocatedonthepropertyandaskedtheownerifhehadseenCox.  TheownersaidhehadnotseenCox.   ` Thedeputiesthenlookedaroundtheoutsideofpetitionerstrailer.  Theysawared quadvehicleparkednearthetrailer.Thedeputieshad  receivedanonymousinformationthatCoxhadbeenseendrivingtwovehicles,  aredquadandaforestservicetruck.DeputyCloutierdidnotknowwhether  itwasthesameredquadthatCoxhadallegedlybeenseendrivinganddidnot   trytodeterminewhetheritwasthesamevehicle.Thedeputiesthendeparted. "  ` Aboutanhourlater,thedeputiesreturnedtopetitionerstrailer.When $  DeputyCloutierknockedonthedoor,heheardascufflingsound;seconds &!" later,petitioneropenedthedoor.Petitionerlookedconfusedandnervous.He (#$ turnedhisheadandlookedtotheright. *%&  ` BelievingthatpetitionermightbealertingCoxtothedeputies  presence,DeputyCloutierforciblyenteredthetrailer,shovingpetitioner  backwardstwotothreefeetandturninghimaround.DeputyCloutier  immediatelyconductedapatdownsearchofpetitioner,whilehispartner   enteredthetraileranddidavisualsearch.Nooneelsewaspresentinthe16   footlongtrailer.Thedeputieshadnotyetspokentopetitioner.    ` Duringthepatdownsearch,DeputyCloutierfeltasmallcylindrical   objectinpetitionerspantspocket.Heaskedpetitioner, Arethereany  weaponsordrugsinthetraileroronyourperson?Petitionerresponded,   No.Thedeputyasked, DoyoumindifIlook?andpetitionersaid, Sure.  Ѐ ` DeputyCloutierpulledthecylindricalcontaineroutofpetitioners  pocketandopenedit.Inside,hefoundwhathesuspectedwas  methamphetamine.Thedeputiessearchedthetrailerandashedattachedtoit.  DeputyCloutierbelievedthat,duringthesearch,whileCloutierwasnot  present,petitionerobjectedtothesearchorwasconfusedaboutwhythe   deputieswerethere. "  ` PetitionerwasaskedbyDeputyCloutierwherethedrugswere. $  Petitionersaidthereweredrugsunderthestairs.Cloutierspartnerlooked &"" underthestairsandfoundroughlyonehalfounceofmarijuana.Deputy  ($$ Cloutieraskedpetitionerwherethemethamphetaminewaslocatedand  petitionerpointedtosomecupboardsandsaid, Itsinacontainer.   ` DeputyCloutierconductedtheimmediatepatdownsearchbecause,  accordingtooneoftheanonymoustips,petitionerwasassociatedwithCox,   whomthedeputyconsideredadangerousparolee.Theofficerassumedthat   anyonewhowouldshelterCoxwascapableof almostanythingtoavoid   [Coxs]detectionandescape.Thedeputythoughtthat,forsafetyreasons,he   mustensurethatpetitionerwasnotarmed.   ` PetitionertestifiedatthemotiontosuppressthatheknewCox,butnot  verywell.HesaidthatCoxhadbeentohistrailerinthepast,butthatithad  beenmorethantwoyearspriortothesearch.    B.0 ` TheDecisionOfTheCourtOfAppealsIsErroneousAndIn  ConflictWithBindingPrecedentFromThisCourt. ` `   GG ` Theappellatecourtmajority,relyingonthisCourt'sdecisionin   N Marylandv.Buie,494U.S.325,108L.Ed.2d276,110S.Ct.1093,(1990)  foundthatpetitionersassociationwithCoxgaveofficersreasontobelieve ! petitionermightbearmed,creatinganexigentcircumstanceandjustifyingthe # warrantlessentryandpatdownsearch.AppendixA,p.14.However,the % ! majorityneverdiscussedthereliabilityoftheinformationreceivedfromthe '"# anonymousinformantsandhowthelackofreliabilityunderminedafindingof )$% exigentcircumstancessupportingawarrantlessentry. +&'  ` Byallowingofficerstoforciblyenterpetitionershousebasedon  anonymousinformanttipswhichdidnotevenconcernpetitioner,theCourtof  AppealhasdisregardedthisCourtsprecedentin Q Welshv.Wisconsin466U.S.  740,748,80L.Ed.2d732,104S.Ct.2091(1984), S Paytonv.NewYork,445   U.S.573,586,589590,63L.Ed.2d639,100S.Ct.1371(1980)and G Florida   v.J.L.,supra,529U.S.266.Policeherehadnowarrantandnoreliable   informationthatparoleeCoxwasinpetitionerstrailerhome. The   unidentifiedtipsfromunidentifiedindividualsrelieduponbytheofficersdid  notsatisfytherequirementofreliableinformation.AppendixA,diss.opn.  Gaut,J.,p.4.   ` TheCourtofAppealsdecisionallowsentryintoahomebasedsolely  onreasonablesuspicion.Itsanctionsaninhomefriskbasedonunreliable  informationaboutsomeoneotherthanthepersonsearched.Themajoritys  opiniondoesnotspecifyanyfactsregardingpetitionerwhichjustifiedthe  illegalentryandfrisk.ThemajoritycitesnovalidbasiseitherforaTerrystop   orforafrisk,eachofwhichmustbeindependentlyjustified.Thus,the " majoritysholdingthatthefriskprongofTerrywasvalidbasedonexigent $  circumstancestoentershouldnothavebeenreachedbecausenovalid &"" antecedentprobablecauseorreasonablesuspicionwasshown.  ($$  ` Further,becauseneitherthetrialcourtnortheCourtofAppealever  consideredthereliabilityoftheunknowninformanttips,petitionerwasdenied  afullandfairhearingofhisclaimunder L Stonev.Powell,supra,428U.S.465.  Thetrialcourthadfoundthattheinformationwasunreliableandthatitdidnot   supportareasonablesuspiciontosearchpetitioner.TheCourtofAppeal   majorityoverturnedthisportionofthetrialcourtsfindingbutindoingso   neglectedtoconsiderthefacttheinformanttipswerenotcorroborated.This   completelyunderminesthereasonablenessoffindinganexceptiontothe  warrantrequirementbasedonexigentcircumstances.   ` TheCourtofAppealsdecisionisinconflictwiththisCourtsdecisions  in V Ybarrav.Illinois,444U.S.85,62L.Ed.2d238,100S.Ct.338(1979),and   O Marylandv.Buie,supra,494U.S.325,becauseitinterpretsthosecasesto  sanctionawarrantless protectivesweepsearchincircumstanceswherethe  officershavenoprobablecausetobelieveacrimehasbeencommitted,but  onlybelieveintheexistenceofexigentcircumstances.UndertheCourtof   Appealsopinion,policemayformreasonablesuspicionbasedonunreliable " tipsandusethis suspiciontocreateexigentcircumstancestoforciblyenter $  ahomeandconducta reasonablesuspicionfriskunder X Terryv.Ohio,392 &"" U.S.1,20L.Ed.2d889,88S.Ct.1868(1968).Thisneverhasbeenthelaw ($$ andisindirectconflictwithcasesrequiringbothexigentcircumstancesand *&& probablecausetoestablishanexceptiontothewarrantrequirement.See,e.g.,   T Paytonv.NewYork,445U.S.573,586,62L.Ed.2d639,100S.Ct.1371  (1980); Y Terryv.Ohio,supra,392U.S.1,20.   ` Thewarrantlessentryofahomeispresumptivelyunreasonable.Payton   v.NewYork,supra,445U.S.atp.586;U.S.Const., [ 4th, ^ 14thAmends.This   Courtheldin T Paytonthatentryintoahomebasedonexigentcircumstances   requiresprobablecausetobelievetheentryisjustifiedbysomefactor,such   astheneedtopreventasuspectsescapeortheimminentdestructionof  evidence.TheCourtofAppealsopinionhereallowsawarrantlessentry  basedsolelyonexigentcircumstances.Basedonthemajoritysreasoning,  questionsregardingthereliabilityofanonymousinformantswouldbe  irrelevantindeterminingwhetherprobablecauseexistsindependentlyof  exigentcircumstances.Itwouldallowpolicetomakeprobablecause  determinationsbasedsolelyonabeliefexigentcircumstancesexistandwould  circumventthewarrantrequirementaltogether.    ` Inthepresentcase,asthedissentnotes,theunsupportedbeliefCoxwas " presentinpetitionershome,combinedwiththeimproperlyextrapolatedbelief $  thatanyonewhoharboredCoxwasdangerous,wasbasedonanonymoustips. &"" Thisconstitutesinsufficientcircumstancestocreateeitherprobablecauseor ($$ exigentcircumstances.AppendixA,diss.op.Gaut,J.,p.4.Byfailingto *&& addressthereliabilityoftheinformationleadingtothewarrantlessentry,the  CourtofAppealmajorityerroneouslyconcludedthatofficersafetyconcerns  alonejustifiedtheentry.Thisputthecartbeforethehorse,becausethe  reliabilityoftheinformantdatawascriticaltodeterminewhetherprobable   causeforentryorreasonablesuspicionforthesearchexisted.Themajority   hasfailedtoevaluatethereasonablenessoftheofficerssuspicionsmeasured   bywhattheyknewbeforetheyconductedthesearch. G Floridav.J.L.,supra,   529U.S.266,271.  Theinformanttipsinpetitionerscasedidnotprovide  reasonablesuspiciontodetainpetitioner,muchlessprobablecausetoenterhis  homebecausetherewasnoassertionofillegality,onlyatendencytoplaceCox  atpetitionershouse.Nordidthetipsprovideareasonablebeliefinexigent  circumstances,astherewasnoinformationpetitionerwasarmedordangerous.  Thus,thetotalityofthecircumstancesdidnotsupportafindingofprobable  cause. b Illinoisv.Gates,462U.S.213,227,76L.Ed.2d527,103S.Ct.2317  (1983).    ` AtimelypetitionforrehearingintheCourtofAppealwasfiledby " petitioner,arguingtheabsenceofanycorroborationoftheanonymoustipsthat $  Coxmightbelocatedatpetitionersresidencerenderedthewarrantlessentry &"" andsearchillegalpursuantto G Floridav.J.L.,supra,529U.S.266.The ($$ dissentingjusticefoundthewarrantlessentryillegalnotonlybecausethe *&& officersfailedtocorroboratetheanonymoustips,butalsobecausethetipsdid  notevenapplytopetitioner.Thustheycouldnotbereliedupontoestablish  exigentcircumstances.App.A,dissentingop.OfGaut,J.,p.4.Rehearing  wasdenied.AppendixB.    ` Petitioner'stimelypetitionforreviewbytheCaliforniaSupremeCourt   wasdeniedwithoutopiniononNovember15,2006.JusticeKennardwasof   theopinionreviewshouldbegranted.App.C,infra.    ` Agrantofcertiorariisnecessarytosettletheconflict.Withoutsuch  reviewandapplicationofbindingprecedentregardingformationofexigent  circumstancesandcorroborationofinformantdata,petitionerwillnothave  beenaffordedafullandfairopportunitytohavelitigatedhis \ Fourth  Amendmentclaim. L Stonev.Powell,supra,428U.S.465,469.   @9  CONCLUSION    n ` Thepetitionforawritofcertiorarishouldbegranted.   `  `     h   Respectfullysubmitted.    `     h   򀀀    `     h   CarmelaSimoncini     `     h    `     h   򀀀    `     h   CynthiaM.Sorman    `     h   AppellateDefenders,Inc.    `     h   CounselforBenjaminCamargo    `     h   Date:February5,2007   +X>X    No._________________  ___________________________  INTHE   SUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES   ___________________________   BENJAMINCAMARGO!PETITIONER   vs.   PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFCALIFORNIA!RESPONDENT    CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE   s ` I,CarmelaF.Simoncini,amemberoftheBarofthisCourt,hereby  certifythatonFebruary5,2007,acopyoftheenclosedMOTIONFOR  LEAVETOPROCEEDINFORMAPAUPERISandPETITIONFORWRIT  OFCERTIORARIwasservedoneachpartytotheaboveproceedingorthat  partyscounsel,andoneveryotherpersonrequiredtobeserved,bydepositing  anenvelopecontainingtheabovedocumentsintheUntiedStatesmailproperly  addressedtoeachofthemandwithfirstclasspostageprepaid.   ` Thenamesandaddressesofthoseservedareasfollows:  PeopleoftheStateofCalifornia0  0  BenjaminCamargo,Jr.   OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral0  0  31600CalleHelena    1110West AStreet,Ste.11000  0  ThousandPalms,CA92276!   P.O.Box852660  0h  0h h 0  "   SanDiegoCA921865266 #  `  `     h   _____________________ &!"  `     h   CARMELAF.SIMONCINI '"#  `     h   CaliforniaStateBarNo.86472 (#$  `     h   APPELLATEDEFENDERS,INC. )$%  `     h   555WestBeechSt.,Ste.300 *%&  `     h   SanDiegoCA92101 +&'  `     h   619.696.0282#>X+Xr#  ,'(   TABLEOFCONTENTS    PAGE     fer    ~}0 `    QUESTIONSPRESENTED#d d f .)` ` #2~}}݌  Ќ    A~0 `    LISTOFPARTIES#d d f . %` ` #3A~\~݌   Ќ    0 `    OPINIONSBELOW#d d f .,,$` ` #1݌   Ќ    0 `    JURISDICTION#d d f . "` ` #2݌    Ќ    z0 `    CONSTITUTIONALANDSTATUTORY   PROVISIONSINVOLVED#d d f .0` ` #3z݌   Ќ    o0 `    STATEMENTOFTHECASE#d d f .+` ` #4o݌   Ќ    40 `    REASONSFORGRANTINGTHEPETITION#d d f .447` ` #64O݌  Ќ    0 ` 0 ` `  `   A.0 TheWarrantlessEntryandPatdownofPetitioner.#d d f .U #8!݌  Ќ    0 ` 0 ` `  `   B.0 TheDecisionOfTheCourtOfAppealsIsErroneousAndIn  ConflictWithBindingPrecedentFromThisCourt.#e .U #10+݌  Ќ    g0 `    CONCLUSION#e .x x ` ` #16g݌  Ќ  r}   INDEXTOAPPENDICES    APPENDIXA0  DecisionoftheStateCourtofAppeal    APPENDIXB0  OrderofStateCourtofAppealDenyingRehearing"   APPENDIXC0  OrderofStateSupremeCourtDenyingReview $     APPENDIXD0  CaliforniaPenalCode,section1538.5 &!"     *%&    TABLEOFAUTHORITIESCITED     PAGE(S)     ` CASES   )r  *  *  Floridav.J.L.,529U.S.266*   Ќ̌   ` [146L.Ed.2d254,120S.Ct.1375](2000). . e .E6,   ^ 7,11,14   *  *  Illinoisv.Gates,462U.S.213     ` [76L.Ed.2d527,103S.Ct.2317](1983)e .$$D14*.݈   Ќ̌  *  *  Marylandv.Buie,494U.S.325    ` [108L.Ed.2d276,110S.Ct.1093](1990)a .G10,12*.݈   Ќ̌  *  *  Paytonv.NewYork,445U.S.573   ` [63L.Ed.2d639,100S.Ct.1371](1980)a .ZZE11,13*3݈  Ќ̌  *  *  Stonev.Powell,428U.S.465   ` [49L.Ed.2d1067,96S.C.3037](1976)^ .C7,12,15*8݈  Ќ̌  *  *   Terryv.Ohio,392U.S.1   ` [20L.Ed.2d889,88S.Ct.1868](1968)a .C12,13* ;݈  Ќ̌  *  *  Welshv.Wisconsin466U.S.740   ` [80L.Ed.2d732,104S.Ct.2091](1984)e .C11*7݈  Ќ̌  *  *  WongSunv.UnitedStates,445U.S.573,   ` [63L.Ed.2d639,100S.Ct.1371](1980)d d f .$$D6*5݈   Ќ̌  *  *!  Ybarrav.Illinois,444U.S.85 "  ` [62L.Ed.2d238,100S.Ct.338](1979)e .B12*!<݈ # Ќ̌  ؈0 ` UNITEDSTATESCONSTITUTIONS % !` `  vr   ` FourthAmendment^ .-5,15,17 '"# 0 ` FourteenthAmendment#  b .ff1` ` #5,15 (#$   )$%  ` CaliforniaPenalCode  |r  0 ` section1538.5#d d f .LL+` ` #4  *  0 ` *  section1538.5,subdivision(a)(1)(A)#d d f .  C` ` #3*=݈  Ќ̌  0 ` 0 ` `