• Published decisions by appellate courts that interpret statutes, regulations, and constitutional provisions. • Case law is the law and must be followed.
Intentionally violating case law or mistakes in understanding case law can result in: • Suppression of evidence • Department Liability • Your Personal Liability • Revers rsal of criminal convictions
United States Supreme Court Questions of Federal Law Interprets United States Constitution United States Court of Appeals California Supreme Court (9th Circuit) United States District Court California Court of Appeal Federal Habeas Corpus Federal Criminal Cases (1st - 6th Districts) Civil Rights Cases (Section 1983) California Superior Courts 58 Counties The California nia S Supreme C Court a t and nd t the Uni nite ted S State tates S Supreme Court t selec ectivel ely r review c ew cases. ses.
(Pg. 152) Facts ts: • Distinctive-looking motorcycle escaped in a chase. • Facebook photos led police to house with that motorcycle parked in driveway under partial roof. • Officers went onto driveway and confirmed bike was stolen. Defendant challenged the search. Hel Held: 1) 1) Searc rch wa h was i impr prope per. 2) Officers with probable cause may search a vehicle without a warrant, but o only y if they have right of access to reach it, such as public access. 3) Here, officers had to walk onto the driveway, which was on “curtilage” of the house, a non- public area similar to a porch or side-yard.
(Pg. 153) Fa Facts: • Officers saw defendant sell crack, enter a car, drive away, return, then exit on foot. • Defendant was arrested two blocks from car and was searched, but had no drugs or cash. • Officers searched the car and found contraband; defendant challenged the search. He Held : 1) 1) Search wa was pr prope per, but not as search incident to arrest. 2) The search did not take place “when en and nd wher ere” the arrest did. Officers had reason to believe car had evidence related to arrest, but arrestee and car must be in clos ose proxi oximity ty. 3) 3) However, , sea earch was OK under nder “Automobi bile le Excep eption” because the video provided probable cause in that it showed defendant with crack before entering the car, and then no longer had it when he exited.
(Pg. 154) Facts: Fa • Defendant, driving a rental, was pulled over for traffic violation. Defendant had fake ID and was not listed on the car rental agreement. • Officers searched the car in the field and found 49 bricks of heroin, and defendant challenged the search. Held: d: 1) Remanded 1) ded for further proceedings. 2) The fact that driver is not on the rental contract does not, by itself, eliminate his privacy rights in the car. 3) On the other hand, the fact that a person is driving a car does not, by itself, give him privacy rights to it. (For example, he could be a car thief.) 4) So, on remand, the lower court must decide whether renting a car using fake ID eliminates one’s privacy rights (just like a car thief).
(Pgs. 157-158) Facts ts: Zaba bala : • After traffic stop (suspended license), officer decided to impound car and conduct “inventory” search in the field. • Baggies with white powder under the seat led him to search hidden area behind radio containing drugs. Wallace : After traffic stop & • arrest (outstanding warrant), officer decided there was nobody to take possession of car, so he conducted “inventory” search and found contraband.
• Hel Held: Both s searches es wer ere i e imp mproper er inventory searches. • Zabal ala : Inventory searches are to protect defendant’s property and police safety, not for finding contraband. There was no basis to investigate hidden compartments. (However, search was upheld under automobile exception due to probable cause re: the white powder baggies.) • Wal alla lace ce : This was not a true inventory search. Officers did not testify whether the car was ever actually impounded, what basis there was for impound (i.e., car stopped in dangerous place), or whether inventory forms were filled out.
DUI
(Pgs. 155-156) Facts ts: Vanne nnesse : • After accident, officer told defendant he could either consent to a blood test or have his license suspended (Implied Consent law); Defendant chose blood test. • Defendant challenged blood draw, saying officer failed to explain he could have opted for a breath test instead. Balov Ba ov : • Officer told defendant under Implied Consent law that he had to take either a blood or breath test. Defendant agreed to a blood test. • Defendant challenged blood draw on the basis that officer did not fully inform him that he could refuse both tests, and the only punishment would be suspension of license.
• Hel Held: Both h blood d draws we were proper r because failure to strictly follow Implied Consent law does not mean Fourth Amendment was violated. Vannesse : 1) Implied Consent law requires officers to give DUI suspects choice of blood or breath test, and refusal means license suspension. 2) Officer not mentioning breath option, did not violate Fourth Amendment. 3) Officer did not coerce or threaten defendant with criminal penalties if he refused the blood test.
Ba Balov ov : 1) Officer failed to read the entire Implied Consent statement about how the only penalty for refusing a blood or breath test was license suspension. 2) But this did not undermine defendant’s consent to the blood draw. 3) Fourth Amendment doesn’t require officers to tell suspects that they may refuse to cooperate. ALERT ERT: Calif ifornia ia S Supreme Court ha rt has agre reed t to consider b r both Ba Balov ov and d Vanne nnesse sse , s , so s stay ay t tuned.
DUI Blood Tests - Emergencies
(Pg. 159) Fact acts: • At hospital, DUI suspect was told he was under arrest and that blood would be drawn. He did not refuse but did not explicitly consent. No warrant. • The hospital took one blood sample for treatment; a second sample was taken for DUI investigation. • Defendant challenged admission of blood results.
Hel Held: 1) 1) Forensic blood d draw wa was i impro proper, r, b but its admission i into e evidence ce a at t trial w al was as h har armle less. 2) In emergency , officers may obtain blood sample without warrant, but emergency means more than just a crash/hospitalization. There was no evidence that officer couldn’t have gotten a warrant quickly, had she tried. 3) But because medical staff also drew blood while treating defendant for his injuries, and the BAC of that sample would have been admissible anyway, error was harmless.
(Pg. 160) Facts: • Defendant was arrested for arson and, as a felony arrestee, was ordered to provide a cheek-swab DNA sample; he refused. • He was later convicted of arson and a misdemeanor PC 298.1(a) for refusing a DNA test. He argued that the law requiring DNA tests for all felony arrestees is unconstitutional.
He Held: 1) 1) The he D DNA t test l law is l lega gal. 2) Government has a valid interest in identifying arrestees. Cheek swab is minimal intrusion, like a booking fingerprint. 3) Government does not use the DNA to collect genetic information about arrestee other than for identification. 4) Possible future challenges to DNA collection left undecided, e.g., when a suspect is arrested but never charged, or is exonerated.
(Pgs. 161-162) Stanley ey : • Bus driver reported passenger who matched description on flier of a child molester at large: white male, 30, 5’10”, 155 lbs, with a beard. • Officer detained passenger, learned he was on parole, and searched him, finding narcotics. • Passenger was not the child molester, but he was charged for drug possession. He challenged detention. K. K.J. : • Student texted vice principal that another student had a gun on campus, but didn’t give suspect’s name. VP called police, who responded and told him to get more info to ID suspect. • VP contacted tipster again, who described suspect’s gender, race, and hairstyle, and gave link to social media video of him with the gun. VP gave tipster two names of possible suspects, and tipster ID’d defendant as one of them. • Officer directed school officials to take defendant out of class; officer detained and searched him, finding gun and ammo. • Def challenged the detention and the search.
(Pgs. 161-162) Held ld: Bot oth detention ions w were re p proper. r. Stanley ey : 1) Officer had reasonable suspicion justifying a brief detention because defendant matched the age, race, and weight of the suspect and bus driver said he looked similar to flier. 2) Bus driver openly contacted police and was reliable, not a CI. K.J. : K. 1) Police detentions of students at school are OK as long as not arbitrary and capricious; this is a lower standard than reasonable suspicion, which applies to adults. (Police searches of students are still subject to reasonable suspicion.) 2) The detention was not arbitrary – it was based on reliable tip from known student. 3) The search was based on reasonable suspicion because although tipster wished to remain anonymous, the VP knew who she was and she provided many specific details.
Recommend
More recommend
