The California Third District Court of |Appeal held that a defendant who gives a false name to a police officer, misleading the officer into believing that the defendant is not subject to a probation search, cannot later argue that a search was illegal in that the officer did not know that the defendant was on probation at the time of the search, according to Fourth Amendment.com. The court ruled that one who gives a false name, thus preventing a officer from checking on his/her probation status is estopped from later claiming that the search did not meet the requirements of a probation search.

In People v. Watkins the defendant told the officer he was on probation but gave the officer his brother’s name. When the officer radioed the name in he found out that the defendant’s brother was not on probation. Based upon the defendant’s statement that he was on probation, the officer conducted a search. Later at the hearing on the motion to suppress the cocaine found in the search the defendant claimed the search was illegal because the officer did not know that he was on probation at the time of the search. The appellate court ruled that the evidence was admissible because the defendant was estopped from arguing that the search was illegal since he misled the officer.