Point of View Archive

Articles

Probable Cause to Search: The "Nexus" Requirement
Crime Scene Searches
Misdemeanor Arrest Quirks
Workplace Searches
Basics of Evidence Suppression
Principles of Probable Cause
Searches Incident to Arrest

Recent Cases

People v. McDaniel (2021) 12 Cal.5th 97
Issue: Under what circumstances may officers order a passenger in a stopped vehicle to remain inside?

People v. Jimenez (2021) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2021 WL 5905719]
Issue: Did an officer coerce a murder suspect into confessing?

People v. Cuadra (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 348
Issue: Was the defendant unlawfully detained?

U.S. v. Weaver (10th Cir. en banc 2021) __ F.4th __ [2021 WL 3610861]
In the Winter 2021 edition we reported on a case from the Second Circuit, U.S. v. Weaver. In this case, two of the three judges on the panel ruled that officers did not have grounds to pat search the defendant. As we made clear, those two judges were not only mistaken, they displayed a shocking ignorance of basic Fourth Amendment law. For that reason, we said that the opinion would probably be reversed. On August 16, 2021, a larger [en banc] panel of the Second Circuit did just that. We will file a complete report on their ruling later, but because their reasoning is essentially the same as that set forth in our original report, we have posted a copy of that report here.

U.S. v. Guillen (10th Cir. 2021) 995 F.3d 1095
Issues: (1) Did the defendant's father have authority to consent to a search of his son's bedroom? (2) Did agents violate Miranda by utilizing an illegal two-step interrogation procedure?

U.S. v. Tuggle (7th Cir. 2021) __ F.3d __ [2021 WL 2946100]
Issue: Under what circumstances must officers obtain a search warrant to conduct surveillance by means of pole cameras?

People v. Tousant (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 804
Issues: (1) Was the defendant's rented Camaro impounded and searched illegally? (2) Did an officer conduct an illegal search of his cellphone in the vehicle? (3) Did an officer "interrogate" the defendant in violation of Miranda?

People v. Moore (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 291
Issue: Did an officer have probable cause to search a vehicle for marijuana?

People v. Nunes (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1
Issue: Did exigent circumstances justify the decision by firefighters to look for the source of smoke in a shed in the backyard?

Lange v. California (2021) __ U.S. __ [141 S.Ct. 2011]
Issue: Under what circumstances may officers pursue a fleeing suspect into a home if the suspect was wanted for a misdemeanor?

Caniglia v. Strom (2021) __ U.S. __ [141 S.Ct. 1596]
Issue: Is there a "community caretaking" exception to the warrant requirement?

US v. Venezia (10C 2021) __ F3 __ [2021 WL 1727603]: In this case, a three-judge panel of the Tenth Circuit ruled there was insufficient reason to tow a vehicle driven by the defendant even though (1) they had arrested him on a traffic warrant; (2) the vehicle was located in the parking lot of a motel in a high-crime area; (3) the defendant was not a guest or visitor at the motel; (4) he did not know the name of the registered owner; and (5) he did not have a license, registration, insurance, or bill of sale. One of the three judges on the panel dissented, pointing out the many ways his colleagues had gone astray. Although the case may not stand, we mention it because it might be the most conspicuously mindless opinion ever written by court in the United States.

Torres v. Madrid (2021) __ U.S. __ [2021 WL 1132514]
Issue: Does a "seizure" occur when an officer fires shots at a suspect?

People v. Flores (2021) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2021 WL 568018]
Issue: Did officers have sufficient grounds to detain the defendant?

U.S. v. Reedy (7th Cir. 2021) __ F.3d __ [2021 WL 777768]
Issue: Was the detention of a burglary suspect unduly prolonged?

U.S. v. Bruce (9th Cir. 2021) __ F.3d __ [2021 WL 98242]
Issue: In attempting to identify a perpetrator, under what circumstances may officers show a witness a single photo of the suspect?

U.S. v. Trader (11th Cir. 2020) 981 F.3d 961
Issue: Must officers obtain a search warrant or other court authorization to obtain a suspect's email and internet protocol addresses from a provider?

In re J.W. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 355
Issue: Must officers obtain a Miranda waiver before asking an arrested minor to state his age if his age is an element of the crime for which he was arrested?

U.S. v. Knights (11th Cir. 2021) __ F.3d __ [2021 WL 908278]
Issue: Was the defendant "detained" when officers approached him to investigate suspicious circumstances?

Recent Cases

People v. Maxwell (2020) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2020 WL 7296850]
What is the permissible scope of a probation search of a vehicle if the probationer was a passenger?

People v. Hall (2020) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2020 WL 6882240]
ISSUE: Did an officer have probable cause to search a vehicle for marijuana?

U.S. v. Cobb (4th Cir. 2020) 970 F.3d 319
ISSUE: Did a warrant to search a computer adequately describe the files that could be searched?

People v. Wilson (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 128
ISSUES: (1) Did a routine search of emailed photos by Google constitute a "police" search? (2) When these photos were transmitted to a law enforcement task force, were officers required to obtain a warrant before viewing them?

People v. Suarez (2020) 10 Cal.5th 116
ISSUES: (1) Did exigent circumstances justify a warrantless entry into a murder suspect's trailer? (2) Did deputies violate Miranda when they questioned the suspect?

U.S. v. Weaver (2nd Cir. 2020) 975 F.3d 94
ISSUE: If a detainee conspicuously attempts to hide something down his pants, is it unreasonable for officers to believe that he might be trying to hide a firearm?
***For reasons we covered in this report, the court's ruling was reversed on August 16, 2021 by the en banc panel. It is not citable authority.

People v. Johnson (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 620
ISSUES: (1) Does the odor of marijuana from inside a vehicle provide officers with probable cause to search it for marijuana? (2) Is it illegal to transport a container of marijuana in a vehicle if it is closed but not sealed?

People v. Henderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1013
ISSUE: Did an officer violate Miranda in obtaining a confession from a murder suspect?

People v. Bowen (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 130
ISSUE: Did officers have grounds to initiate an emergency "ping" on a suspect's cell phone?

U.S. v. Curry (4th Cir. 2020) 965 F.3d 313
ISSUES: (1) Did officers have grounds to detain a person who was leaving a location from which gunshots had just been fired? (2) Under what circumstances, if any, may officers detain a person on grounds of exigent circumstances?

U.S. v. Rickmon (7th Cir. 2020) 952 F.3d 876
ISSUE: Under what circumstances can a ShotSpotter alert provide officers with grounds to detain people in the area?

U.S. v. Moore-Bush (1st Cir. 2020) 963 F.3d 29
ISSUE: Must officers have a search warrant to install and monitor a pole camera located across the street from a suspect's home?

Kansas v. Glover (2020) __ U.S. __ [140 S.Ct. 1183]
Issue: If an officer runs the license plate on a moving vehicle and learns that the registered owner's license had been suspended or revoked, does the officer have grounds to stop the vehicle to investigate?

People v. Lopez (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 317
Issue: If officers arrest a person for driving under the influence of drugs, does he effectively consent to a blood draw if he does not object when informed that he is required by law to provide a blood sample?

U.S. v. Blakeney (4th Cir. 2020) 949 F.3d 851
Issues: Did a search warrant affidavit for a blood draw establish probable cause to believe that a DUI suspect was impaired? (2) Did the affidavit establish probable cause to search the Event Data Recorder in the suspect's car?

People v. Rubio (2020) 43 Cal.App.5t 342
Issue: Under what circumstances will a "shots fired outside a residence" constitute an exigent circumstance that would authorize a warrantless entry into a home to search for victims?

In re Anthony L. (2019 ) 43 Cal.App.5th 438
Issue: What are the consequences if officers interrogate a 15-year old suspect who has not yet conferred with an attorney?

Recent Cases and Notes

People v. Lee (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 853
ISSUES: (1) Did an officer have probable cause to search a suspect's car for drugs? (2) Was the inventory search of the car a pretext to look for drugs?

People v. Krebs (2019) __ Cal.5th __ [2019 WL 6207609]
ISSUES: (1) Did an investigator obtain a murder confession by utilizing a two-step interrogation process? (2) Did the investigator coerce the suspect into confessing?

People v. Tran
(2019) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2019 WL 5958335]
ISSUE: Did an officer violate the Fourth Amendment by seizing a dashcam from a driver who had just caused an injury accident?

People v. Lopez
(2019) __ Cal.5th __ [2019 WL 6267367]
ISSUE: If a traffic violator is unable to produce a driver's license or other evidence of ID, may officers search the vehicle for it?

In re Jeremiah S.
(2019) _ Cal.App.5th __ [2019 WL 5302782]
ISSUE: May officers pat search a suspect who had been lawfully detained to investigate a violent crime if there was no additional reason to believe he was armed?

People v. Rubio
(2019) __ Cal.5th __ [2019 WL 3331305]
ISSUE: Did a warrantless entry into a garage fall within the "community caretaking" exception to the warrant requirement?

Gonzalez v. Moreno
(1st Cir. 2019) 919 F.3d 582
ISSUE: Was a suspect's consent to search his computer invalid because the officers lied to him about their reasons for wanting to search it?

U.S. v. Landeros
(9th Cir. 2019) 913 F.3d 862
ISSUE: While conducting a traffic stop, may officers demand that passengers identify themselves?

People v. Caro
(2019) 7 Cal.5th 463
ISSUES: (1) Did an officer violate the Fourth Amendment by seizing a murder suspect's clothing that had been removed in a hospital by emergency room staff? (2) Was a warrant required to seize evidence obtained from the defendant's person while she underwent surgery? (3) Did the presence of investigators in the operating room, and their taking of photos, constitute an illegal search? (4) Was the defendant "in custody" for Miranda purpose when she was later questioned by investigators?

People v. Molano
(2019) __ Cal.5th __ [2019 WL 2621826]
ISSUES: (1) Did investigators violate Miranda by lying to a murder suspect about their reasons for wanting to interview him? (2) Did the suspect reinitiate questioning after he invoked his Miranda rights?

People v. Sanchez
(2019) 7 Cal.5th 14
ISSUE: In ID cases, under what circumstances may officers show a witness a single photo of the suspect, as opposed to conducting a photo or live lineup?

Mitchell v. Wisconsin
(2019) __ U.S. __ [139 S.Ct. 2525]
ISSUE: If a DUI arrestee is unconscious, must officers obtain a search warrant before ordering a blood draw?

Correction: In the article on lineups in the Spring-Summer edition, we said that sequential lineups will be mandatory beginning in 2020. That was an error. They are not mandatory.

People v. Anthony
(2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 1102
ISSUE: After a suspect in a gang-related murder invoked his right to counsel, did a detective violate Miranda by questioning him about a related murder?

People v. Korte
(9th Cir. 2019) 918 F.3d 750
ISSUE: Did officers violate the Fourth Amendment by conducting a warrantless search of the defendant's car and by installing a GPS tracking device?

People v. Orozco
(2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 802
ISSUE: Did officers violate Miranda when, after a murder suspect invoked, they placed him in a room with his girlfriend and asked her to question him about the crime?

People v. Westerfield
(2019) 6 Cal.5th 632
ISSUE: In the investigation into the abduction and murder of a seven-year old girl, did the affidavits in support of five search warrants establish probable cause?

Recent Cases, Updates and Alerts

People v. Gutierrez (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1155
ISSUE: If a DUI arrestee opts for a blood test, must officers nevertheless obtain a search warrant?

Whalen v. McMullen (9th Cir. 2018) __ F.3d __ [2018 WL 5530736]
ISSUE: Was an officer's consensual entry into a suspect's home unlawful because the officer lied about the purpose of his visit?

People v. Delgado (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 1092
ISSUE: Did detectives violate Miranda while questioning a murder suspect?d

People v. Fews (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 553
ISSUES: (1) Did officers have adequate grounds to pat search the defendant? (2) Under what circumstances may officers in California search a vehicle for marijuana?

U.S. v. Artis (N.D. Cal. 2018) __ F.Supp.3d __ [2018 WL 3241400]
ISSUES: Can California Superior Court judges authorize federal agents to execute search warrants without assistance from California law enforcement officers? If not, does it follow that California judges are prohibited from issuing search warrants to any federal agents?

People v. Vannesse (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 440
ISSUE: If an officer reasonably believes that a DUI arrestee was under the influence of drugs or a combination of drugs and alcohol, is it a violation of California law to inform him that he must provide a blood sample? Or must the officer inform him that he can choose between a blood or breath test?

U.S. v. Maxi (11th Cir. 2018) 886 F.3d 1318
ISSUES: (1) Did officers illegally enter the property surrounding the defendant's home to conduct a "knock and talk?" (2) Did the defendant open the door voluntarily when an officer knocked? (3) Was the officers' warrantless entry into the home justified by exigent circumstances?

U.S. v. Gardner (6th Cir. 2018) 887 F.3d 780
ISSUE: Did a prostitute have apparent authority to consent to a search of a cell phone she shared with her pimp?

People v. Meza (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 604
ISSUE: If a DUI arrestee is treated at a hospital for injuries, under what circumstances can officers obtain a blood sample without a warrant?

Carpenter v. United States (2018) __ U.S. __ [138 S.Ct. 2206]
NOTE: The Supreme Court's decision in Carpenter will not affect California law as state law already requires a search warrant to obtain CSLI.

People v. Case (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1
ISSUE: Did a detective violate a murder suspect's Miranda rights when he continued to question the suspect after he invoked his right to remain silent?

Collins v. Virginia (2018) __ U.S. __ [138 S.Ct. 1663]
ISSUES: (1) If officers have probable cause to search a suspect's vehicle, may they do so
without a warrant if the vehicle was parked on the suspect's driveway? (2) If probable
cause is not enough, under what circumstances can such an entry be based on implied
consent?

People v. Gutierrez (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1146
ISSUE: When conducting probation searches of a residence, under what circumstances may officers detain visitors?

DNA Testing of Arrestees: On April 2, 2018 the California Supreme Court ruled that, per California's DNA Act (Proposition 69), officers may, without a warrant, take DNA samples from people who have been arrested and are being booked for a felony]. People v. Buza (2018) 4 Cal.5th 658

U.S. v. Sanjar et al. (5th Cir. 2017) 876 F.3d 725.
ISSUES: (1) Did a search warrant describe the evidence to be seized with sufficient particularity? (2) Did the affidavit establish probable cause to believe that all of the documents to be seized constituted evidence of a crime?

Smith v. City of Santa Clara (9th Cir. 2017) 876 F.3d 987.
ISSUE: Are officers prohibited from conducting a probation search of a residence if an occupant who is not on probation objects to the search?

District of Columbia v. Wesby (2018) __ U.S. __ [138 S.Ct. 577]
ISSUE: Did officers have probable cause to arrest 21 partygoers for unlawfully entering a vacant house?

People v. Almeda et al. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 346.
ISSUE: Was a jailhouse informant functioning as a police agent when he elicited incriminating statements from a murder suspect?

In re I.F. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 735.
ISSUE: Did officers violate the Miranda rights of a 12-year old murder suspect?

Recent Cases, Updates and Alerts

People v. Parker (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1184
ISSUES: Did a serial murderer waive his Miranda rights? Did he later invoke them?

U.S. v. Gorman (9th Cir. 2017) 859 F.3d 706
ISSUE: Under what circumstances is a pretext traffic stop unlawful?

People v. Zabala (2017) __Cal.App.5th __ [2018 WL 359950]
ISSUE:While conducting vehicle inventory searches, may officers routinely search potential secret compartments?

U.S. v. Orth (1st Cir. 2017) 873 F.3d 349
ISSUE: Did an officer have sufficient grounds to pat search a passenger in a vehicle that had been stopped for a traffic violation?

People v. Wallace (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 82
ISSUE: Did the search of the defendant's car constitute a lawful inventory search?

People v. Williams (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 111
ISSUE: Did officers unlawfully enter the defendant's property?

In re Ezra Griffith (D.C.C. 2017) __ F.3d __ [2017 WL 3568288]: In what is the most mindless appellate court decision in recent memory, a panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled on August 18, 2017 that, even though the U.S. Supreme Court has observed that cell phones are now "such a pervasive and insistent part of daily life that the proverbial visitor from Mars might conclude they were an important feature of human anatomy" (Riley v. California (2014) __ U.S.__[134 S.Ct. 2473], the affidavit in this case failed to establish probable cause to search for the defendant's cell phone in his home because the affidavit did not contain an explanation as to why this particular defendant possessed a cell phone. It is unnecessary to discuss the court's reasoning because there is none. (The opinion is also unnecessarily long which almost always demonstrates that the judges had a hard time justifying their ruling.) In any event, we need only refer to the dissenting opinion of Judge Janice Rogers Brown to demonstrate the panel's ineptitude. Said Judge Brown: "In dismissing these logical inferences [as to the defendant's ownership of a cell phone], the Court focuses on the fact that the affidavit does not mention Griffith owning or using a cell phone. But these statements ignore the realities of the world in which we live and jettison the common-sense inquiry judges are to make when determining the existence of probable cause. The Supreme Court has recognized that "a significant majority of American adults now own [cell] phones." This statement is confirmed by the Pew Research Center, whose research indicates that in 2013 over 90% of American adults owned a cell phone. Furthermore, this number jumps up to 97% for adults between ages 18 and 34. Id. Thus, the Court's assertion that the affiant's failure to allege that Griffith owned a cell phone somehow resulted in a bare bones affidavit devoid of any indicia of probable cause that Griffith did, in fact, own a cell phone is pure applesauce."

In re D.W. (2017) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2017 WL 2875860]
ISSUE: If officers have probable cause to believe that a person possessed an ounce or less of recreational marijuana, may they search him for the marijuana as a routine incident to the arrest?

People v. McKnight (2017) __ P.3d -- [2017 WL 2981808]
ISSUES: (1) Does the use of a K9 to detect marijuana in a vehicle constitute a "search" in states where possession of small amounts of marijuana is lawful? (2) If so, did the officers have probable cause to search?

U.S. v. Spivey (11th Cir. 2017) __ F.3d. __ [2017 WL 2782852]
ISSUE: Under what circumstances will consent to enter a residence be invalidated if officers lied about their objective?

People v. Nguyen (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 574
ISSUE: Did a search warrant impliedly authorize a search of two residences on the suspect's property?

U.S. v. Ulbricht (2nd Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 71
ISSUE: When officers write search warrants for electronic communications or data, how much specificity is required when describing the information to be seized?

People v. Pou (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 143
ISSUE: Did the "emergency aid" exception to the warrant requirement justify a warrantless entry and protective sweep of a home?

People v. Cervantes (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 860
ISSUE: Did officers exceed the permissible scope of a probation search of a vehicle when they searched two bags in the back seat even though the bags did not belong to the probationer?

Ames v. King County (9th Cir. 2017) 846 F.3d 340
ISSUE: Did a sheriff's deputy act reasonably when she forcibly detained a woman who was interfering in a medical emergency?

U.S. v. Perkins (9th Cir. 2017) 850 F.3d 1109
ISSUES: (1) Was a search warrant affidavit intentionally or recklessly misleading? (2) If so,
did probable cause exist despite the misleading information? (3) If a warrant to search
for child pornography was based on a photo, must the photo be included in the affidavit?

People v. Villa-Gomez (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 527
ISSUE: If a sheriff's deputy asks a prisoner about his gang membership during the booking process, are his responses admissible to prove his gang affiliation as to a crime he committed later?

People v. Superior Court (Corbett) (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 670
ISSUES:(1) Did an officer violate the defendant's Miranda rights? (2) Did the defendant voluntarily consent to a search of his home? (3) If the consent was involuntary, was the search nevertheless lawful because the officers had probable cause for a warrant? (4) If the search was illegal, was the evidence nevertheless admissible under the "inevitable discovery" rule?

U.S. v. Paxton et al. (7th Cir. 2017) 848 F.3d 803
ISSUE: Did a group of arrestees reasonably believe that their conversation in the back of a police transport van would be private?

Articles

Vehicle Searches
Recording Staged Communications
Electronic Communications Searches [55 KB]
Questioning Defendants [54 KB]
Surreptitious Questioning [66 KB]

Recent Cases, Updates and Alerts

People v. Macabeo (2016) __ Cal.4th __ [2016 WL 7048010]
ISSUE: May officers conduct a search incident to arrest of a suspect if officers had not yet decided to take him into custody?

Thomas v. Dillard (9th Cir. 2016) 818 F.3d 864
ISSUE: When responding to a domestic violence call, do officers automatically have a right to pat search the aggressor?

People v. Lopez (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 815
ISSUES: (1) Did an officer detain the driver of a car when he approached her and asked for ID? (2) If not, did the officer have grounds to search her car for ID when she said she was not carrying ID, but that there "might" be some inside the vehicle?

U.S. v. Wright (7th Cir. 2016) 838 F.3d 880
ISSUE: Did a suspect's domestic partner have authority to consent to a search of the suspect's computer?

U.S. v. Williams (9th Cir. 2016) 837 F.3d 1016 ISSUES: (1) Did officers have reasonable suspicion to detain the defendant? (2) As an incident to arrest, could they search the defendant's pockets and his car?

Parole and probation searches of cell phones: Effective January 1, 2017 Penal Code section 1546.1(c) will be amended to permit officers to search the cell phones of all parolees, and the cell phones of probationers who are subject to a search condition that specifically authorizes such searches. Even though the statutes will not go into effect until January first, prosecutors may now seek cell phone search authorization but specify that it will not go into effect until January 1, 2017.

EXCEPTIONS TO CELL PHONE SEARCH WARRANT REQUIREMENT:

Penal Code section 1546.1(c) (9): Except where prohibited by state or federal law, if the device is seized from an authorized possessor of the device who is serving a term of parole under the supervision of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or a term of postrelease community supervision under the supervision of county probation. Effective January 1, 2017.

Penal Code section 1546.1(c)(10): Except where prohibited by state or federal law, if the device is seized from an authorized possessor of the device who is subject to an electronic device search as a clear and unambiguous condition of probation, mandatory supervision, or pretrial release. Effective January 1, 2017.

Birchfield v. North Dakota Update: On November 1, 2016, the DMV distributed a memo to law enforcement that should clear up the confusion resulting from the Supreme Court's decision in Birchfield. Per the memo, officers should no longer advise DUI arrestees that a refusal to consent to a chemical test will result in any criminal penalties, such as fine or imprisonment. Consequently, DMV is revising its form DS 367 to omit the following language: "Refusal or failure to complete a test will also result in a fine and imprisonment if this arrest results in a conviction of driving under the influence." This means that officers can choose between seeking a warrant or simply not reading the warning about the penal consequences of a refusal. Per DMV, law enforcement agencies will be notified when the revised DS 367 forms are available. The new forms should be ordered from the DMV Materials Management Warehouse using the normal supply procedures.

U.S. v. Torres (9th Cir. 2016) __ F.3d __ [2016 WL 3770517]
ISSUES: (1) Did officers have sufficient reason to impound a vehicle and conduct an inventory search? (2) Was the search excessive in its scope?

U.S. v. Bohannon (2nd Cir. 2016) __ F.3d __ [2016 WL 30679931]
ISSUES: (1) If officers entered the home of third party for the purpose of serving an arrest warrant on a visitor, whose Fourth Amendment rights were violated if they did not have a search warrant? The arrestee's? The third party's? Both? (2) Did officers have sufficient reason to believe that the arrestee was inside the home they entered?

Birchfield v. North Dakota (2016) __ U.S. __ [136 S.Ct. 216]
ISSUE: In Birchfield, the Supreme Court announced new rules for obtaining blood samples from DUI arrestees.

U.S. v. Thomas (11th Cir. 2016) 818 F.3d 1230
ISSUES: (1) Did the defendant's wife have common authority over computers that were used by both her and the defendant in the family home? (2) Were officers required to wake up the defendant and obtain his consent before searching the computers?

U.S. v. Henry (1st Cir. 2016) __ F.3d __ [2016 WL 3361730]
ISSUES: (1) Did an officer have sufficient grounds to patdown a jacket near a suspected sex trafficker? (2) Did the officer have probable cause to reach inside the jacket? (3) Did officers have probable cause to seize the suspect's cell phones?

In re Rafael C. On June 29, 2016 the California Supreme Court granted a petition to review its decision in In re Rafael C. (see below for a report on the case) Consequently, Rafael C. is no longer citable authority.

U.S. v. Contreras (7th Cir. 2016) __ F.3d.__ [2016 WL 1567035]
ISSUE: Did exigent circumstances justify a warrantless entry into a residential garage to seize drugs?

People v. Espino (2016) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2016 WL 2993994]
ISSUES: (1) Was a traffic stop unduly prolonged? (2) Was the defendant under illegal de facto arrest when he consented to a search of his car?

Utah v. Strieff (2016) __ U.S. __ [2016 WL 3369419]
ISSUE: If officers detain a suspect illegally but then learn that he is wanted on an arrest warrant, must a court suppress any evidence discovered during a search incident to the warrant arrest?

Update:People v. Arredondo (2016) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2016 WL 758597]
As we reported in the Spring-Summer Point of View, the court in People v. Arredondo essentially ruled that unlicensed drivers were exempt from California's so-called "implied consent law. On June 6, 2016, the California Supreme Court granted review of this case. Consequently, it is no longer citable authority.

People v. Garlinger (2016) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2016 WL 3178824] [the Court of Appeal ruled that cell phone radio technology is not a "new" technology and, thus, an officer who was trained in the field could establish at trial the reliability of such technology and explain how it works].

In re Rafael C. (2016) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2016 WL 1178374]
ISSUE: Did school officials need a warrant to search a student's cell phone?
NOTE: On June 29, 2016 the California Supreme Court granted review of this case. Consequently, it is no longer citable authority.

People v. Garcia (2016) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2016 WL 693138]
ISSUE: Was a showup of three robbery suspects unduly suggestive because officers had detained them about six hours after the holdup and had told the victims beforehand that they "had caught the guys?"

U.S. v. Flores (9th Cir. 2015) 802 F.3d 1028
ISSUE: Was the information in a search warrant affidavit "stale"?

U.S. v. Houston (6th Cir. 2016) __ F.3d __ [2016 WL 482210]
ISSUES: Was the warrantless electronic surveillance of the defendant's farm illegal because it was conducted by means of a camera atop a utility pole? If not, did it become illegal because it lasted for ten weeks?

U.S. v. Lara (9th Cir. 2016) __ F.3d __ [2016 WL 828100]
Issue: May officers search a probationer's cell phone based on a probation search condition that authorizes searches of the probationer's "property"?

U.S. v. Thompson (7th Cir. 2016) __ F.3d __ [2016 WL 384960] ISSUES: (1) When an informant or undercover officer is invited into a suspect's home to plan or commit a crime and, while inside, he uses a hidden audio and video device to record everything he saw or heard, is such an operation illegal because the suspect had not expressly consented to the recording? (2) In any event, should such warrantless recording be deemed unlawful because it constitutes such an extreme invasion of privacy?

People v. Perez (2016) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2016 WL 104712]
ISSUE: Was a murder suspect's confession voluntary, or was it the result of a promise of
leniency?

Articles

Consent Searches [105 KB]
Third Party Consent[80 KB]

Probable Cause to Search [95 KB]
Plain View[72 KB]

Recent Cases, Updates, and Alerts

People v. Douglas(2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 855
Issue: Before searching a person pursuant to a parole or PRCS search condition, what level of proof must an officer have that the person was, in fact, searchable?

U.S. v. Rahman (7th Cir. 2015) __ F.3d __ [2015 WL 6841031]
Issue: Did fire investigators exceed a business owner's consent to search for the cause and origin of a fire in his business?

People v. Bridgeford(2015) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2015 WL 6500857]
Issue: After a double murder suspect invoked his right to counsel, did sheriff's deputies violate Miranda by releasing him from custody, rearresting him about three hours later, then, after obtaining a Miranda waiver, resuming their questioning about the murders?

U.S. v. Cacace et al. (2nd Cir. 2015) 796 F.3d 176
Issue:(1) Did the wife of a mafia boss give an FBI operative valid consent to enter her home? (2) Did the operative exceed the scope of consent when she stole an address book from the house and, if so, was she then acting as a police agent or a private citizen?

People v. Linn(2015) 241 Cal.App.4th46
Issue: During a traffic stop based on the actions of a passenger, was the driver automatically detained because the officer had taken temporary possession of the driver's license she handed to him?

People v. Brown(2015) 61 Cal.4th 968
Issues: (1) Was the occupant of a parked car detained when a deputy pulled in behind him and activated his emergency lights? (2) If so, did the deputy have grounds to detain him?

In re Elias V.(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 568
Issue: While questioning a teenager about a sex crime, did an officer utilize coercive interrogation tactics?

U.S. v. Fizarraga-Tirado (9th Cir. 2015) __ F.3d __ [2015 WL 3772772] Issue: Does a Google Earth satellite image constitute inadmissible hearsay? If not, does it become hearsay if it includes computer-generated markers, such as a "digital tack?"

People v. Elizalde (2015) __ Cal.4th __ [2015 WL 3893445]
Issue: When an arrestee is booked into jail, must deputies obtain a Miranda waiver before asking about his gang affiliation?

Rodriguez v. United States (2015) __ U.S. __ [135 S.Ct. 1609]
Issue: Does a traffic stop become unlawful if the officer extended it for the purpose of having a K9 conduct a sniff of the car's exterior?

Apple lockout update: Last year, we wrote several comments about Apple's announcement that its new iPhone operating system (iOS 8) was designed so that all stored communications and data would not be accessible to anyone--even officers with a search warrant. (See "New iPhone App: Criminals Love It," 2014 Editions). Now, however, the website Police Technical is reporting that it has found a way to override this feature. The Police Technical address is www.policetechnical.com.

People v. Hensley (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 761
Issues: While interrogating a serial killer and obtaining a confession, did a detective violate his Mirandarights? If not, did he pressure him into confessing?

Heien v. North Carolina (2014) __ U.S. __ [135 S.Ct. 530]
Issue: Is a traffic stop unlawful if it was based on an officer's mistake about a vehicle code regulation?

People v. Alvarez (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 761
Issue: Under what circumstances may criminal charges against a defendant be dismissed if officers failed to investigate whether the crime had been captured on a nearby surveillance camera?

People v. Harris (2015) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2015 WL 708606]
Issues: (1) If a DUI arrestee consents to a blood test, is the consent necessarily involuntary if officers had previously notified him of the legal penalties for refusing? (2) Did the Supreme Court in it's 2013 decision in Missouri v. McNeely prohibit DUI arrestees from consenting to blood draws?

Taking DNA samples from felony arrestees: On February 18, 2015 the California Supreme Court granted a petition to review People v. Buza (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1446. In Buza, a panel of the Court of Appeal ruled that California's "DNA Act" of 1998 violated the California Constitution because it authorized officers to take DNA samples from all felony arrestees, even though their guilt had not yet been adjudicated. Consequently, Buza has been abrogated.

People v. Toure (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1096
Issue: Did exigent circumstances justify a warrantless blood draw from a combative DUI arrestee who had caused an injury accident?

People v. Jones (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1257
Issue: If officers arrest a DUI suspect who refuses to take a breath test, may they order a forcible blood draw if they learn that he is on parole, searchable probation, or subject to supervision under California's new realignment system?

Recent Cases, Updates, and Alerts

HEIEN v. NORTH CAROLINA (2014) __ U.S. __ [135 S.Ct. 530] *See 2015 Editions

PROPOSITION 47: IMPACT ON CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS. Click here for a report.

PEOPLE v. JONES (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1257 * See 2015 Editions

U.S. v. ANDINO (2nd Cir. 2014) 768 F.3d 94
Issues: (1) Could DEA agents lawfully enter a house if, although they had consent from an incarcerated resident, they were refused entry by a residence who was present? (2) Apart from consent, did an exigent circumstance justify the warrantless entry? (3) If so, did the exigent circumstance also allow them to enter the kitchen and the second floor? Click here for our report on this case.

U.S. v. NORA (9th Cir. 2014) 765 F.3d 1049
Issue: Did exigent circumstances justify a warrantless entry into a home to apprehend an armed and fleeing suspect? Click here for our report on this case.

PEOPLE v. LUJANO (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 175 |
Issue: Did officers have sufficient reason to believe that a home was being burglarized so as to justify a warrantless entry? Click here for our report on this case.

PEOPLE v. McCURDY (2014) 59 Cal.4th 1063
Issues: Did the defendant invoke his Miranda rights while being questioned about the murder and sexual assault of a child? If so, did he then reinitiate questioning? Click here for our report on this case.

In re J.G. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 402
Issue: Did a consensual encounter between an officer and a 15-year old boy become an illegal de facto detention? Click here for our report on this case.

Apple iPhone Update (October 22, 2014): In attempting to obtain evidence is a criminal investigation, a detective with the Alameda County Sheriff's Office asked Apple if it would provide data stored in the suspect's iPhone 6 if a search warrant ordered it. Apple sent the following reply: "Dear Detective, According to your email, the Apple Device in question is an iPhone 6. All iPhone 6 devices are currently sold running iOS version 8. Since the device is running iOS version 8 or a later version, the iOS Extraction cannot be completed even upon the receipt of a valid search warrant. iCloud content may still be available upon receipt of a valid search warrant. Please refer to http://images.apple.com/privacy/docs/legal-process-guidelines-us.pdf for more information. Best, Privacy & Law Enforcement Compliance Team, Apple Inc." Just wondering: What if the stored information would have enabled officers to locate a person missing under suspicious circumstances or a kidnapped child, or if it would have thwarted an impending terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction? Would Apple then be so boastful about its privacy policy? It is regrettable that an iconic corporation like Apple has so little faith in the courts, the nation's criminal justice system, and the privacy protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment that it would proudly announce that its own ideas about privacy supersede all of them.

Apple iPhone Update (October 17, 2004) As discussed below, Apple is touting that its new operating system iOS8 has been designed so that criminal investigators can never access the stored data—even if they have a search warrant. In response to the FBI Director's concern about making Apple computers warrant-proof, Law Professor Orin Kerr writes in Volokh Conspiracy about the possibility (actually, it was just a thought experiment) of making such software illegal. Said Kerr, "Under this proposed statute, if the subject of a court order in a federal investigation refuses to decrypt his data in a context when there is no valid privilege, the government could bring a prosecution for the refusal that would carry the same punishment as the offense under investigation." By this time, we hope that Apple is rethinking its misguided idea.

SUPREME COURT TO RULE ON TRAFFIC STOPS: On October 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would rule on whether officers may extend a traffic stop, for even a short time, after they had completed all of their duties pertaining to the stop. The case is Rodriguez v. U.S. from the Eighth Circuit, and the following is the Question Presented in the cert petition: "This Court has held that, during an otherwise lawful traffic stop, asking a driver to exit a vehicle, conducting a drug sniff with a trained canine, or asking a few off-topic questions are 'de minimis' intrusions on personal liberty that do not require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity in order to comport with the Fourth Amendment. This case poses the question of whether the same rule applies after the conclusion of the traffic stop, so that an officer may extend the already-completed stop for a canine sniff without reasonable suspicion or other lawful justification."

SESSOMS V. GROUNDS (9th Cir. 2015) 776 F.3d 615
Case summary: In an en banc decision filed on September 22, 2014, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Sessoms, an incarcerated murder suspect, invoked his Miranda right to counsel when he told Sacramento police detectives, "There wouldn't be any possible way that I could have a—a lawyer present while we do this? … Yeah, that's what my dad asked me to ask you guys ... uh, give me a lawyer." In an earlier decision, the California Court of Appeal had ruled that these remarks did not constitute an invocation because they were ambiguous. Specifically, the first remark was merely a question and the second remark was an explanation of what his father had told him to do; i.e., neither remark demonstrated that Sessoms—himself—wanted to have an attorney present. The Ninth Circuit, however, ruled the Court of Appeal's decision was based on such a hypertechnical reading of Sessoms's words that it constituted "an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent." Consequently, it ruled that Sessoms's subsequent incriminating statements should have been suppressed. In a dissent joined by two other judges, Circuit Judge Mary Murguia said, "Although the majority may offer the most logical interpretation of what Sessoms was attempting to communicate by his statements, there are other interpretations that are at least reasonable, even if less compelling. Even taking Sessoms's statements together, those statements contained just enough ambiguity that a fairminded jurist could conclude that Sessoms was indicating only that he might want the assistance of counsel." It's a close case.

Apple iPhone Update (September 22, 2014): Just received a phone call from someone who identified himself as a Stanford law professor. During a rambling five-minute spiel, he breathlessly urged me to quickly remove the "news" story (below) because it is "hurting your image" at Stanford. Why is our image at risk? (And why would a Stanford law professor care?) Because, he said, the students actually believe that we think the Fourth Amendment will have to be rewritten as the result of Apple's new privacy policy and operating system! And, he added, that's "stupid." I agreed it was stupid, but I rejected his request because I am quite certain that no one would have thought we were serious. That means the "professor" was probably a fraud, which raises the questions: Who was he? And why is he so distressed about our criticism of Apple's new privacy policy? Something is afoot.

New iPhone App: Criminals Love It
(POV News, September 20, 2014) — Apple has announced that its new operating system iOS8 has been designed so that criminal investigators can never access the stored data—even if they have a search warrant! According to Apple's website, "On devices running iOS 8, your personal data such as photos, messages (including attachments), email, contacts, call history, iTunes content, notes, and reminders is placed under the protection of your passcode. Unlike our competitors, Apple cannot bypass your passcode and therefore cannot access this data. So it's not technically feasible for us to respond to government warrants for the extraction of this data from devices in their possession running iOS 8." "It's a brilliant move," said famed marketing consultant Alfred E. Neuman, who added, "Since the only people who worry about search warrants are criminals, it appears that Apple has tapped into a new and potentially lucrative consumer market: the common criminal! Plus, Apple is using this new technology to separate itself from its competitors who actually respond to search warrants." However, according to legal scholar Roger Kaputnick, one consequence of Apple's decision is that the following language or its equivalent must quickly be added to the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution: Although this venerable Amendment has struggled to find a balance between the privacy interests of the People and the needs of law enforcement, no Apple device running iOS8 or later may be searched—even with a warrant—because Apple's Privacy Policy takes precedence over the procedure established by this revered Amendment.

Cell site data: Update onU.S. v. Davis: On September 4, 2014 the Fourth Circuit granted en banc review of a case in which a panel ruled that cell site data is private. The case was US v. Davis (11C 2014) 573 Appx. 925. As we said in our initial note on Davis, we think this case will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Red lights and detentions: Review granted: On August 20, 2014 the California Supreme Court granted a petition to review the case of People v. Brown (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 480. In Brown, the Court of Appeal ruled that a detention did not result when an officer pulled up to a parked car and turned on his red lights.

The Aftermath ofMissouri v. McNeely: By now you might have heard that many judges in California (and probably throughout the country) are unhappy about being awakened by officers at all hours of the night to review search warrant applications for DUI blood draws. And who can blame them? We would like to point out, however, that the fault for this fiasco lies not with the officers but with the U.S. Supreme Court. That is because the Court in Missouri v. McNeely made these nightly phone calls compulsory when it ruled that exigent circumstances caused by the natural elimination of alcohol and drugs from the arrestee's bloodstream are no longer sufficient to justify most warrantless DUI blood draws, and that a search warrant based on probable cause was now required. As we noted then—and we think it is still true—the Court's ruling was unnecessary because, prior to McNeely, if a court concluded that an officer lacked probable cause for the arrest, the evidence in the arrestee's bloodstream would be suppressed as the fruit of an unlawful arrest. That's still the law under McNeely, except now officers and judges must also go through the motions of pondering a standardized and self-evident list of relevant circumstances, and then asking themselves a question that could be answered correctly by any sober adult and most teenagers: Does this information establish a "fair probability" that the driver was impaired? Not only did this requirement elevate form over substance, it continues to squander police and judicial resources which are already under severe budget pressure. Maybe if the Justices had to live with the real-life consequences of their decisions they would make better ones.

â–º RILEY v. CALIFORNIA (2014) __ U.S. __ [134 S.Ct. 2473]
Issue: If officers arrest a person who has a cell phone in his possession, may officers search the digital contents of the phone as an incident to the arrest, or must they obtain a warrant? Click here for our report on this case.

â–º PEOPLE v. SUFF (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1013
Issues: (1) Did an officer have sufficient grounds to make a traffic stop on a suspected serial killer? (2) Did a detective violate Miranda in obtaining an incriminating statement from him? Click here for our report on this case.

â–º IN RE S.F. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1575
Issue: Did an officer have probable cause to arrest a minor for possessing a graffiti tool with the intent to vandalize? Click here for our report on this case.

â–º IN RE J.D. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 709
Issue: Did school officers have sufficient grounds to search a high school student's locker? Click here for our report on this case.

â–º U.S. v. MEDUNJANIN (2nd Cir. 2014) 752 F.3d 576 Issue: Did FBI agents and NYPD detectives violate a terrorist's Miranda rights? Click here for our report on this case.

NAVARETTE v. CALIFORNIA (April 22, 2014) __ U.S. __ [134 S.Ct. 16832014]
Issue: Under what circumstances can an anonymous 9-1-1 caller provide officers with grounds for a traffic stop? Click here for our report on this case.

Penal Code§ 296 is constitutional: Penal Code § 296 authorizes DNA buccal swabbing of any person arrested for certain felonies; i.e., murder, attempted murder, voluntary manslaughter, attempted voluntary manslaughter, or any of the felony sex offenses specified in Penal Code § 290. On March 20, 2014 the Ninth Circuit ruled the statute is constitutional. Haskell v. Harris (9th Cir. 2014) __ F.3d __ ["'Is California's DNA collection scheme constitutional as applies to anyone arrested for, or charged with, a felony offense by California state or local officials?' After Maryland v. King, 133 S.Ct. 1958 (2013), the answer is clearly yes."]. Also note that on March 19, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted review of People v. Lowe (2013) 221 CA4 1276, 1292 in which the Court of Appeal also upheld the validity of this statute.

â–ºPEOPLE v. WAXLER (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 712
]Issues: (1) Can an officer search a vehicle for marijuana under the "automobile exception" if he has probable cause to believe the vehicle contains substantially less than an ounce? (2) Is such a search prohibited if the driver presented the officer with a medical marijuana card? Click here for our report on this case.

►PEOPLE v. SPRIGGS (2013) 224 Cal.App.4th 150
Issue: Does a motorist violate Vehicle Code § 23123(a) by holding a cell phone and viewing a map application on its display? Click here for our report on this case.

â–ºPEOPLE v. ELIZALDE (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 351
Issue: When an inmate is booked into jail, must officers obtain a Miranda waiver before asking him questions about his gang affiliation? Click here for our report on this case.
Notice: Petition for Review Granted: On April 9, 2014, the California Supreme Court announced it would review the Court of Appeal's decision in Elizalde. This means that Elizalde--a truly horrible opinion--is no longer citable authority.

â–ºFERNANDEZ v. CALIFORNIA (2014) __ U.S. [134 S.Ct. 1126]
Issue: If a person refuses to consent to a search of his home, can officers obtain consent to search from another resident after they arrest the objecting resident and remove him from the premises? Click here for our report on this case.

â–ºPEOPLE v. DUFF (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527
Issues: (1) Did officers violate Miranda before obtaining an incriminating statement from a murder suspect? (2) Was the suspect's statement involuntary? Click here for our report on this case.

Articles

Miranda Waivers
Miranda Invocations [116 Kb]
Miranda: Post-Invocation Interrogation [87 Kb]

Recent Cases, Updates, and Alerts

â–ºIndicates that we have written a downloadable report on the case.

We are now shipping CCI 2014. The 2014 edition of California Criminal Investigation has been printed and is now being shipped. For details, click on "Publications."

U.S. v. HOWARD (7th Cir. 2013) 729 F.3d 655
Issues: (1) Did an officer have grounds to detain the defendant in order to safely arrest one of his companions? (2) Was the detention unnecessarily intrusive? Click here for our report on this case.

U.S. v. TOSTI (9th Cir. 2013) 733 F.3d 816
Issues: (1) Did the defendant have a reasonable expectation of privacy in child pornography images on a computer he left at a CompUSA store for repair? (2) Did the defendant's wife have apparent authority to consent to a search of digital storage devices located in the family home? Click here for our report on this case.

INFORMATIVE DUI CASE: On November 21, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in People v. Vangelder. Among other things, the court provided an interesting discussion of the science of intoxication, especially how a driver becomes impaired after drinking alcohol. For officers and prosecutors who work in this area, Vangelder is must-reading. It is also noteworthy that the defendant in Vangelder, as many defendants do, launched a vigorous attack on the reliability of breath testing to determine the degree of a driver's intoxication. In light of the new California law that expressly allows officers to seek search warrants that compel arrested drivers to submit to a blood test (Pen. Code section 1524(a)(13)), Vangelder might provide them with additional motivation to avail themselves of this law. Although the court ultimately ruled that the breath test results were sufficiently reliable, it observed that Vangelder "remained free to argue, and present evidence, that the particular machines used in this case malfunctioned, or that they were improperly calibrated or employed." Such an argument would be unavailing whenever officers obtain a blood sample.

â–º STANTON v. SIMS (2013) __ U.S. __ [2013 WL 5878007]
Issue: Was an officer "plainly incompetent" for making a warrantless entry into a residence to apprehend a suspect who was wanted only for a misdemeanor? Click here for our report on this case.

â–º PEOPLE v. TURNER (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 151
Issues: (1) Did officers have reasonable suspicion to detain a parent at a high school football game? (2) If so, did the manner in which they detained him result in a de facto arrest? Click here for our report on this case.

REDUCING THE NUMBER OF VEHICLE PURSUITS: According to NPR, police in Iowa and Florida are testing a secret weapon: a small cannon embedded in the grill of patrol cars. The cannon shoots "tracking" bullets — containing tiny GPS devices — that can stick to the trunk of a suspect's car. Officers could then follow a vehicle at a leisurely pace instead of embarking on a dangerous high-speed chase.

SEARCHING CELL PHONES INCIDENT TO ARREST: The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to decide whether, or under what circumstances, the Fourth Amendment permits officers to conduct a warrantless search of the digital contents of an individual's cell phone seized from the person at the time of arrest. The case is Riley v. California. Note that in People. Diaz (2011) 51 Cal.4th 84. [certiorari denied by Diaz v. California, 132 S.Ct. 94] the California Supreme Court ruled that an arrestee's cell phone may be searched pursuant incident to an arrest because cell phones are immediately associated with the person of the arrestee. But courts in other states that have addressed this issue have reached various conclusions. See US v. Wurie (1st Cir. 2013) __ F.3d __ [2013 WL 2129119] [good general discussion of the unsettled state of the law]. We are hoping the Supreme Court will grant the petition in Riley and clarify this important issue.

NEW DUI LAW: DUI blood draw warrant is signed into law: On September 20, 2013, the Governor signed into law an amendment to Penal Code section 1524(a), specifically Penal Code section 1524(a)(13). This section expressly authorizes judges to issue search warrants to draw blood from drivers arrested for DUI in order to determine if, and to what extent, they were under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or both. The law became effective immediately. To obtain a DUI search warrant form in Microsoft Word formal (so it can be edited), send an email to POV@alcoda.org.

Text of statute: Penal Code § 1524(a) (13) When a sample of the blood of a person constitutes evidence that tends to show a violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle Code and the person from whom the sample is being sought has refused an officer's request to submit to, or has failed to complete, a blood test as required by Section 23612 of the Vehicle Code, and the sample will be drawn from the person in a reasonable, medically approved manner. This paragraph is not intended to abrogate a court's mandate to determine the propriety of the issuance of a search warrant on a case-by-case basis.

â–º PEOPLE v. BURTON (2013) __ Cal.App.4th Supp. __
Issue: Under California's "in the presence" rule, if an officer makes an arrest for a misdemeanor that was not committed in his presence, must evidence resulting from the arrest be suppressed? Click here for our report on this case.

Recording police-suspect interactions: There is an interesting article in the August 21, 2013 New York Times on the growing use of officer-equipped cameras in California to record police-suspect encounters. Click here.

â–º ROBEY v. SUPERIOR COURT (2013) 56 Cal.4th 1218
Issue: If officers have probable cause to believe that a package in their possession contains evidence of a crime, does the mobility of the package constitute an exigent circumstance that justifies a warrantless search? Click here for our report on this case.

â–º PEOPLE v. BARNES (2013) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2013 WL 2481258]
Issue: Must officers obtain a search warrant to "ping" a stolen cell phone? Click here for our report on this case.

â–º PEOPLE v. LEATH (2013) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2013 WL 3087071]
Issues: (1) Does a police contact automatically become an investigative detention whenever officers obtain ID from the suspect? (2) Did officers have grounds to detain a suspected armed robber? Click here for our report on this case.

â–º PEOPLE v. ERMI (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 277
Issue: During a probation search of a male probationer's home, under what circumstances may officers search a woman's purse? Click here for our report on this case.

â–º SALINAS v. TEXAS (2013) __ U.S. __ [133 S.Ct. 2174]
Issue: If officers were questioning a suspect who was not in custody, and if the suspect refused to answer one of their questions, do prosecutors violate the suspect's Fifth Amendment rights by presenting testimony at the suspect's trial that he refused to answer? Click here for our report on this case.

MARYLAND v. KING (2013) __ U.S. __ [133 S.Ct. 1958]
OK to take DNA samples from arrestees: On June 3, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Maryland statute that requires the collection, analysis, and storage of DNA data from people arrested for certain "serious" offenses. It appears the Court's ruling will mean that California Penal Code § 296 is also constitutional. Specifically, section 296 permits the taking of DNA samples via buccal swab from people who have been arrested for murder, attempted murder, voluntary manslaughter, attempted voluntary manslaughter, or any of the felony sex offenses specified in Penal Code § 290. The constitutionality of California's law is currently under review by the California Supreme Court in the case of People v. Buza. The issue is also under en banc review by the Ninth Circuit in Haskell v. Harris.

PEOPLE v. FERNANDEZ (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 100
Cert granted: Third party consent searches: On May 20, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari in People v. Fernandez. The issue is whether, under Georgia v. Randolph a defendant must be personally present and objecting when police officers ask a co-tenant for consent to conduct a warrantless search or whether a defendant's previously stated objection, while physically present, to a warrantless search is a continuing assertion of 4th Amendment rights which cannot be overridden by a co-tenant.

â–º PEOPLE v. WESTMORELAND (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 602, 613-14
Review granted: Police interrogation: On May 15, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted review of Westmoreland in which the Court of Appeal ruled that a murder suspect's confession was involuntary on grounds that it resulted from an officer's promise of a reduced sentence. The Supreme Court then immediately ordered the case returned to the Court of Appeal "with directions to vacate its decision denying rehearing and reconsider that cause . . ." We hope this means the Court of Appeal will reconsider its decision which, as we reported below, seemed contrary to the law and the facts. Click here for our report on the Court of Appeal's decision.

â–º MISSOURI v. McNEELY (2013) __ U.S. __ [133 S.Ct. 1552]
Issue: If officers have arrested a suspect for a DUI-related crime, must they obtain a search warrant to forcibly obtain a sample of his blood for testing? Click here for our report on this case.

â–º DUI Search Warrant Form Available: We have drafted a warrant form authorizing a blood draw from a DUI arrestee. The form was revised on April 22, 2013. View latest PDF version: Click here.To obtain a copy: To obtain a copy of this form in Microsoft Word format (which can be edited), send a request from a departmental email address to POV@acgov.org.

► FLORIDA v. JARDINES (2013) __ U.S. __ [133 S.Ct. 1409]
Issues: (1) Did an officer conduct a "search" of the defendant's home when he walked his drug-sniffing dog to the front door to determine if the dog detected drugs inside? (2) If so, was the search lawful under the implied consent rule? Click here for our report on this case.

U.S. v. McDOWELL (10th Cir. 2013) 713F.3d. 571
Summary: In applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Florida v. Jardines (below), the 10th Circuit ruled that an officer who walked across the driveway of McDowell's home did not violate Jardines because, "[i]n order to reach the sidewalk leading to the front door, [the officer] had to cross the driveway."

U.S. v. SHUCK (10th Cir. 2013) 713F.3d. 563
Summary: In another case applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Florida v. Jardines (below), the 10th Circuit ruled that, because it appeared that "persons entering [Shuck's] trailer entered through the back door," officers did not violate Jardines by walking to the back door in order to contact him. Said the court, "The portion of the curtilage that is the normal route of access for anyone visiting the premises is only a semi-private area on which police may set foot it they restrict their movements to places visitors could be expected to go."

PEOPLE v. CORRALES (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 696
Summary: The court ruled that officers may rely on circumstantial evidence in determining whether there were grounds to believe that a driver was texting in violation of Vehicle Code section 23123.5. Specifically, the court ruled that an LAPD officer had grounds for a traffic stop because, after seeing the driver using his cell phone while parked at the curb, the officer saw him drive off at a very slow speed while "leaning and looking down" at his front seat, and "making movements with his hand like he was texting."

PEOPLE v. DIAZ (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 743
Summary: In Diaz, a vehicular manslaughter case, the court ruled that officers do not need a search warrant to download and view data from the Sensing Diagnostic Module (a.k.a. "Black Box") in a vehicle involved in a fatal accident if officers have probable cause to believe the data would be relevant in determining whether the data would provide evidence as to whether the driver committed a felony. The court also affirmed the trial court's ruling that "speed and braking are always relevant in determining the causes of a collision." Note that, although Vehicle Code section 9951 states that a court order is required, the statute does not contain a suppression remedy.

► SIMS v. STANTON (9th Cir. 2013) 706 F.3d 954
Issues: (1) Did an officer conduct a "search" of a home when he kicked open a gate and entered the front yard? (2) If so, was the search lawful on grounds of exigent circumstances? Click here for our report on this case. ***This case has been overturned. See the report on Stanton v. Sims, above.

PEOPLE v. IKEDA(2013) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2013 WL 342672]
Issue: If officers arrest or detain a suspect just outside his home, under what circumstances may they conduct a protective sweep of the premises? Click here for our report on this case. NOTE: Review granted: On May 1, 2013, the California Supreme Court granted a petition to review this case. Consequently, it is no longer citable authority.

â–º BAILEY v. UNITED STATES (2013) __U.S. __ [133 S.Ct. 1031]
Issue: May officers detain a suspect incident to the execution of a search warrant if the detention did not occur in the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched? Click here for our report on this case.

â–º FLORIDA v. HARRIS (2013) __ U.S. __ [133 S.Ct. 1050]
Issue: If probable cause to search a vehicle was based mainly on an alert by a drug-detecting K9, what is the test for determining whether the dog was sufficiently reliable? Click here for our report on this case.

â–º PEOPLE v. SCHMITZ (2012) 55 Cal.4th 909
Issue: What is the permissible scope of a parole search of a vehicle if the parolee was a passenger, not the driver? Click here for our report on this case.

Articles

Miranda: When Compliance Is Compulsory
Entry to Arrest: Ramey, Payton, and Steagald
Obtaining Electronic Communications Records
Obtaining Email, Voicemail, and Text Messages

Recent Cases, Updates, and Alerts

People v. Schmitz (2012) __ Cal.4th __: On December 3, 2012, the California Supreme Court ruled that officers who are conducting a parole search of a vehicle based on based on the parole status of a passenger may search "those areas of the passenger compartment where the officer reasonably expects that the parolee could have stowed personal belongings or discarded items when aware of police activity." In doing so, it rejected the defendant's argument that such searches must be restricted to areas that are "immediately accessible" to the parolee. Thus, the court in Schmitz ruled that, because an officer was aware that the front seat passenger was on parole, he could lawfully search a pair of shoes and a bag of potato chips in the backseat area. Said the court, "[I]t was objectively reasonable for the officer to expect that this parolee could have stowed his personal property in the backseat, tossed items behind him, or reached back to place them in accessible areas upon encountering police." The court declined to discuss whether the scope of such searches could include closed compartments in the vehicle, such as a glove box. We will provide a more detailed analysis later.

US v. I.E.V. (9th Cir. 2012) __ F.3d __ [2012 WL 5937702]: On November 27, 2012 a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the pat search of a passenger in a car stopped at a checkpoint was unlawful even though a K9 had alerted to the car and the driver seemed extremely nervous and "continually touched his abdomen." The panel also ruled that, even if a pat down was permitted, the officer exceeded the permissible scope of the search because, after feeling a hard object under his shirt (the object was a brick of marijuana) he lifted his shirt to see what it was. In his dissent, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski began by saying, "Two words best describe the majority opinion: 'wrong' and 'dangerous.'" He then proceeded to entirely destroy the legal basis for the majority's ruling. But, rather than engage in a futile attempt to refute Judge Kozinski's points, the majority simply ignored them; i.e., "That's our story and we're going to stick to it." For these reasons, it is likely that most courts will ignore this misguided decision or find ways to distinguish it. We will provide a more detailed analysis later.

People v. Walker (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 165
ISSUE:Was the physical description of a perpetrator of a sexual battery sufficiently similar to the appearance of the defendant to warrant a detention?

U.S.Supreme Court to review warrantless DNA testing of arrestees: On November 9, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would review a Maryland law that authorizes the collection and analysis of DNA samples from people who have been arrested for certain crimes. The case is Maryland v. King. California has a similar law in Penal Code § 296 except that it permits DNA collection and anlysis of all felony arrestees. The constitutionality of California's law is currently under review by the California Supreme Court. The case is People v. Buza. Pending a decision by either the United States Supreme Court or the California Supreme Court, Penal Code § 296 remains in force. See People v.Superior Court (Clark) (1994) 22 Cal.Ap.4th 1541, 1547; Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 976(d).

New: Vehicle Tracking Warrants: Effective January 1, 2013, California judges are expressly authorized to issue search warrants for the installation and monitoring of vehicle tracking devices. The warrants may authorize tracking for 30 days, with provisions for 30-day extensions. I have written the following forms which are now available to officers: (1) Vehicle Tracking Search Warrant, and (2) Extension of Vehicle Tracking Search Warrant. These forms can be viewed in the "Forms" section of this website. To receive copies in Microsoft Word format (which can be edited), send a request from a departmental email address to CCI@acgov.org.

Maxwell v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. 2012) __ F.3d __ [2012 WL 4017462]
ISSUE: Did sheriff's deputies violate clearly established law when, at the scene of a fatal shooting, they detained the victim's family members for more than five hours?

People v. Rodriguez (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 1540
ISSUE: Did an officer have grounds to detain a suspect because he ran from him? If not, were there sufficient additional circumstances to warrant the stop?

People v. Fernandez (2012) 208 Cal.App.;4th 100
ISSUE: If a resident of a house consents to a search, is the search unlawful if officers had just arrested another resident who, if he had not been arrested and removed from the scene, would have certainly objected to the search?

Warrantless blood testing: On September 24, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review Missouriv. McNeely in which the issue is as follows: Can a law enforcement officer obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream?

Videotaping interrogations: "[New York City] Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Monday that he expects a New York Police Department program that calls for the full videotaping of interrogations in major crimes to be implemented while he is still in office. Mr. Bloomberg said he supports the practice that is gaining traction nationally and has been endorsed by civil liberties groups, defense attorneys and members of law enforcement. Last week, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said the NYPD will significantly expand the pilot program of videotaping interrogations to include all suspects of murder and sexual-assault cases in the city, but he offered no timeline." From The Wall Street Journal.

Developments in obtaining DNA from arrestees: Penal Code § 296 authorizes the collection and analysis of the DNA of any person arrested for a felony. The constitutionality of this statute is under review, as follows: U.S. Supreme Court: On July 30, 2012, Chief Justice Roberts issued an order staying a decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals, thereby allowing Maryland's DNA testing law to remain in effect until the U.S. Supreme Court acts on a cert. petition in the case. The Chief Justice said that there is a "fair prospect" that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant certiorari and uphold the law. California: On October 19, 2011, the California Supreme Court announced it would review the case of People v. Buza (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1424 in which the Court of Appeal ruled that Penal Code § 296 is unconstitutional as it applied to arrestees. As the result of the Supreme Court's action, Buza has been depublished and no longer constitutes legal authority. 9th Circuit: En banc review pending. Haskell v. Harris (9th Cir. 2012) 669 F.3d 1049.NEW DEVELOPMENT: See U.S. Supreme Court to review warrantless DNA testing of arrestees, above.

Arrest for photographing police activity: A court in New Jersey recently addressed the recurring issue of whether, or under what circumstances, officers may arrest a person for photographing police activity. To read the excerpt, click here.

On those verbose published opinions: Over the years, I have struggled through many published opinions that are longer than necessary--often much longer. Finally, a judge has addressed this issue. And he did it in a published opinion, he did it well, and (not surprisingly) he did it with few words. To read it, click here.

People v. Tully (2012) 54 Cal.4th 952
ISSUES: (1) Was a traffic stop unduly prolonged? (2) Did an officer exceed the permissible scope of a consent search? (3) Did officers violated Miranda in obtaining statements from the defendant that later linked him to a murder?

People v. Robinson(2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 232
ISSUE: Did an officer's insertion of a key into the lock of a home constitute a search? If so, was the search lawful?

U.S. v. Skinner (6th Cir. 2012) 690 F.3d 772
Tracking cell phones: On August 14, 2012 the Sixth Circuit ruled in U.S. v. Skinner that a drug courier could not reasonably expect that officers would not monitor his travels by means of monitoring the pinging transmissions to and from his cell phone. Thus, the court ruled that officers do not need court authorization to obtain such data, at least when the phone is not tracked for an extended period of time. Said the court, the monitoring of the defendant's cell phone location by means of pinging did not constitute a search "[b]ecause the cell-site data is simply a proxy for the defendant's visually observable location, and a defendant has no legitimate expectation of privacy in his movements along public highways."
NOTE: Until the matter is resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court (and this might be the case in which it does so), we recommend that officers continue to seek court authorization.

U.S. v. Flores-Lopez (7th Cir. 2012) 670 F.3d 803
ISSUE: Must officers obtain a warrant to search an arrestee's cell phone for its phone number?

People v. Superior Court (Chapman) (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1004
ISSUE: Having secured a residence in which a man had been shot and killed, were officers required to obtain a search warrant before reentering the house to seize evidence that had been in plain view?

People v. Rangel (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1310
ISSUE: If a search warrant authorizes a search for indicia of gang activity, does it impliedly authorize a search of smartphones on the premises?

People v. Torres (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 989
ISSUE: Did officers have sufficient grounds to make a warrantless entry into a hotel room to prevent the destruction of burning marijuana?

U.S. v. Bolivar (9th Cir. 2012) 670 F.3d 109
ISSUE: While conducting a probation search of a home, did officers have sufficient reason to believe that a backpack was searchable?

U.S. v. Perea-Rey (9th Cir. 2012) 680 F.3d. 1179
ISSUES: (1) Did a federal agent's entry into an enclosed carport constitute a "search"? (2) If so, was the search lawful?

People v.Tom (2012) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2012 WL 899572]
ISSUE: Was a motorist who caused a fatal traffic accident "in custody" for Miranda purposes because he was required to remain at the scene? NOTE: On June 20, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted a Petition to Review this case. Consequently, it is no longer citable authority.

People v. Mendoza (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1056
Issue: May officers pat search a person who is being contacted—not detained?

Howes v. Fields (2012) __U.S. __ [132 S.Ct. 1181]
Issue: Are state prison inmates automatically in custody for Miranda purposes when they are questioned about crimes that occurred outside the facility?

U.S. v. Glover (4th Cir. 2011) 662 F.3d 694
Issue: Did officers reasonably believe that a detainee was preparing to rob a gas station?

People v. Dement (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1
Issue: After a murder suspect invoked his right to counsel, did an officer violate Miranda by engaging in small talk about an unrelated murder case?

People v.Nelson (2012) 53Cal.4th 367
Issues: (1) In determining whether a remark by a juvenile constituted a Miranda invocation, must the officers and courts apply the same test as is used when the suspect was an adult? (2) Does a juvenile's request to speak with a parent constitute a Miranda invocation? (3) Can waivers by juveniles be implied, or must they be express?

Ryburn v. Huff (2012) __ U.S. __ [132 S.Ct. 987]
Issue: Did exigent circumstances justify a warrantless entry by officers into the home of a teenager who was reportedly planning to "shoot up" his school?

United States v. Jones (2012) __ U.S. __ [132 S.Ct. 945]
Issue: Must officers obtain a search warrant to install a GPS monitoring device to the undercarriage of a vehicle and monitor the vehicle's whereabouts?

U.S. v. Jones form available: Click here to view a form for a search warrant authorizing the installation and monitoring of a vehicle tracking device. Officers and prosecutors may receive a copy of this form via email in Microsoft Word format (which can be edited), by sending a request from a departmental email address to POV@acgov.org:

Articles

Lineups and Showups
Search Warrant Special Procedures
Search Warrants
Searches Incident to Arrest
Protective Sweeps

Alerts and Recent Cases

People v.Nelson (2011) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2011 WL 5515547]
ISSUE: Is a motorist in violation of Vehicle Code section 23123 if he uses a cell phone while
stopped at a traffic light?

Bobby v.Dixon (2011) __ U.S. __ [2011 WL 5299458]
ISSUES: (1) Did a murder suspect effectively invoke his Miranda right to counsel when he
refused to talk about the victim's disappearance without his attorney present? (2) After
the victim's body was found, did investigators obtain the suspect's confession to the
murder by employing the illegal "two step" procedure?

People v.Thomas (2011) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2011 WL 5110251]
ISSUE: Under what circumstances may officers utilize a ruse to obtain a DNA sample from a suspect?

People v.Nattoli (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 531
ISSUE: Under what circumstances may officers conduct a vehicle search based on the "reasonable suspicion" standard announced in Arizona v. Gates?

Robey v. Superior Court __ Cal.App4th __ [2011 WL 5027491]
ISSUE: If officers have probable cause to believe there are drugs in a container in their possession, are they required to obtain a warrant before searching it?
RULING SUPERSEDED: The California Supreme Court affirmed this ruling in 2013. See the report on Robey v. Superior Court in 2013 editions.

Update on DNA collection from arrestees: On October 19, 2011, the California Supreme Court announced it would review the case of People v. Buza (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1541 in which the Court of Appeal ruled that Pen. Code § 296 is unconstitutional as to its provision authorizing the taking of DNA samples from arrestees without a warrant. As the result of the Supreme Court's action, Buza has been depublished and no longer constitutes legal authority.

"Open Carry" Update: On October 10, 2011 Gov. Jerry Brown signed a measure that, with certain exceptions, bans the open carrying of handguns in California beginning on January 1, 2012. The law--which will become Penal Code section 26350--makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in a public place.

Showups: Should probable cause make them illegal? We discuss a bill now before the California Legislature that would prohibit field showups of detainees if officers had probable cause to arrest them.

"Open Carry" Detentions: A Rebuttal: We respond to a client "alert" by from a law firm about our article on "open carry" detentions

Glik v.Cunniffe (1st Cir. 2011) __ F.3d __ [2011 WL 3769092]
ISSUE: Under what circumstances may officers arrest a person for recording them as they arrest another person?

People v.Downey (2011) __ Cal.App.4^th __ [2011 WL 3621856]
ISSUE: To enter a home to conduct a probation search, must officers have probable cause or merely reasonable suspicion to believe that the probationer lives there?

Dougherty v.City of Covina (9th Cir. 2011) __ F.3d. __ [2011 WL 3583404]
ISSUE: If officers have probable cause to believe that a person engaged in "inappropriate touching" of children, do they automatically have probable cause to believe he possesses child pornography?

U.S. v. Smith (8th Cir. 2011) __ F.3d __ [2011 WL 3366393]
ISSUES: (1) Did the use of felony car stop procedures on a detainee render the detention a de facto arrest? (2) When the detainee fled on foot, did he effectively abandon his vehicle so as to eliminate his privacy interest in its contents?

People v. Bennett (2011) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2011 WL 2905597]
ISSUE: Can officers detain the driver of a car for a parking violation?

People v. Stillwell (2011) __ Cal.App.4th __ [2011 WL 3035109]
ISSUES: (1) Did POST certification establish the reliability of a drug detecting dog (K9)? (2) Does an alert by a K9 establish probable cause to search? (3) Did a K9 conduct an unconstitutional "search" when he sniffed inside the bed of a pickup truck?

U.S. v.Warren (3rd Cir. 2011) 642 F.3d 182.
ISSUE: Did an officer properly advise a suspect of his Miranda rights before questioning him?

Davis v.United States (2011) __ U.S. __ [131 S.Ct. 2419]
ISSUE: If officers conduct a search in accordance with existing law, but before the resulting criminal charge is resolved the law is changed in a way that rendered the search unlawful, must evidence obtained during the search be suppressed?

GPS surveillance goes to Supreme Court: On June 27, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided to review the case of U.S. v Jones and is expected to address the following issues: (1) Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on a vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment, and (2) whether the government violated the respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the tracking device without a valid warrant and without his consent.

J.D.B. v.North Carolina (2011) __U.S. __ [2011 WL 2369508]
ISSUE: In determining whether a minor was "in custody" for Miranda purposes, must officers take into account the minor's age?

Camreta v. Greene (2011) __ U.S. __ [2011 WL 2039369]
ISSUE: Must officers obtain a court order or parental consent before questioning a child at school about a report that the child had been sexually abused by a parent?

Kentucky v. King (2011) __ U.S. __ [2011 WL 1832821]
ISSUE: If officers make a warrantless entry into a home to prevent the destruction of evidence, under what circumstances will the entry be deemed unlawful on grounds that the threat to the evidence was created by the actions of the officers?

Garcia v. County of Merced (9th Cir. 2011) __ F.3d __ [2011 WL 1680388]
ISSUES: (1) Did officers have probable cause to arrest an attorney for smuggling drugs into the Merced County Jail? (2) In obtaining a warrant to search the attorney's office, did officers misrepresent an informant's criminal record?

U.S. v.Ludwig (10^th Circuit 2011) __F.3d __ [2011 WL 1533520]
ISSUES: (1) Did an officer have sufficient grounds to stop a car for speeding? (2) Did the officer develop reasonable suspicion to detain the driver to investigate the possibility he was transporting drugs? (3) Was the officer's K9 sufficiently reliable so that an alert would generate probable cause to search?

U.S. v.Cuevas-Perez (7^th Cir. 2011) __ F.3d __ [2011 WL 1585072]
ISSUE: Must officers obtain a search warrant to conduct GPS surveillance of a vehicle if the
surveillance will be protracted?

Peoplev. Rios (2011) __ Cal.App. 4^th __ [2011 WL 893026]
ISSUE: While conducting a probation search of a residence, did officers have sufficient grounds to detain a visitor?

People v.Troyer(2011) 51 Cal.4th 599
ISSUE : Did officers reasonably believe that a warrantless entry into a residence was necessary to locate a shooting victim?

People v. Gomez (2011) __ Cal.App.4^th __ [2011 WL 383876]
ISSUE: When a booking officer questions an arrestee about his gang affiliation and status without first obtaining a Miranda waiver, are the arrestee's answers admissible in court under Miranda's booking question exception?

People v. Moore (2011) __ Cal.4^th __ [2011 WL 285186]
ISSUES: Was a murder suspect "in custody" for Miranda purposes when he was questioned in a patrol car? If not, was he in custody during subsequent questioning in a police interview room?

Huff v. City of Burbank (9th Cir. 2011) __ F.3d __ [2011 WL 71472]
ISSUE: Did exigent circumstances justify a warrantless entry into the home of a teenager who was reportedly planning to "shoot up" his school?

U.S. v. Carona (9th Cir. 2011) __ F.3d __ [2011 WL 32581]
ISSUE: Did a prosecutor violate a California Rule of Professional Conduct when he arranged for an informant to elicit incriminating statements from an uncharged suspect about a crime for which the suspect was represented by counsel?

People v. Diaz (2011) __ Cal.4th __ [2011 WL 6158]
ISSUE: May officers search an arrestee's cell phone as an incident to his arrest?