The URL can be used to link to this page

RPDPS 2022 Case Law Update PowerpointRohnert Park DPS Case Law Update December 2022 Justin Wax #505 Jwax@rpcity.org (707) 588-3545 Disclaimer I am not an Attorney All of the information presented to you was obtained via the resources we will discuss, at police-related trainings, via other published legal updates, and via my own research You are ultimately responsible for maintaining your own knowledge and practices surrounding existing and evolving case law. The images utilized in this presentation are not owned by me, nor are they being used in violation of the Copyright Act. All rights are reserved to the copyright owners. Goals Refresh your recollection of current legislation Study & Discuss changed & rapidly evolving legislation Learn something new Put what you've learned & what you known to practice Agenda Consititutional Law Patrol Operations -Related Case Law Use of Force & De-escalation Department Policy Interview & Interrogation Sonoma County DA's Office Update 2023 Legislation Changes Community Caretaking Doctrine Special Relationships Scenarios Case Law/ Juveniles Public Duty Doctrine Legal Update Tools & Resources Non-Criminal Barricade Recent & Relevant SB's & AB's Marijuana Search & Seizure Exigent Circumstances Appellate Courts Interview & Interrogation Freedom of Speech ...And more Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Of all appellate courts (13), tied for highest % of vacated or reversed rulings by the SCOTUS (100% -12/12) October 2021- June 2022 Of all appellate courts (13), 2nd highest % of vacated or reversed rulings by the SCOTUS (80.4%) 2007-PRESENT (6th circuit -82%) Majority of Judges were appointed by Republican Presidents (24 R/27D) October 2022 3 Judges per hearing, no jury Review cases to determine if law was applied correctly. Graphic redacted due to copywrite. Page redacted due to copwrites. Alameda County POV Graphics redacted due to copywrite. California Police Officers Legal Sourcebook. Graphics redacted due to copywrite. California Legal Update Retired San Diego Deputy DA Graphic redacted due to copywrite. Why is case law important? Supreme Court decisions are binding on every court in the country immediately upon issuance. State Law CAN be more restrictive than Consistutional Law but, 4th Amendment in CA is NOT more restrictive. Federal Court of Appeals decisions are given "great weight", but not binding like SCOTUS (Etechevvery v. Tri-Ag Services, Inc. -{2000}) Multiple Federal Courts decide consistently, likely going to weigh with Federal Courts (same case). The informer by FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) Summaries of cases in Federal Courts of Appeals about 4th & 5th Amendment's + Use of Force Scenario #1 You are investigating an armed robbery and you positively identify the suspect approximately 2 weeks (14 days) after the initial incident. Upon researching the suspect, you learn that your suspect in the 211 was a suspect in a Santa Rosa PD murder case and he had been arrested by Santa Rosa PD for that case the day after your 211 occured. You contact Santa Rosa PD and inquire about their investigation in order to not disrupt their investigation. SRPD advises that their investigation is complete, the suspect has been arraigned, the suspect is still in custody at Sonoma County MADF, and the suspect has obtained legal counsel for their murder case. How do you proceed? A. Interview suspect at jail B. Do not interview suspect A. Interview suspect at jail People v. Sully & McNeil v. Wisconsin resulted in CA Supreme Court & SCOTUS ruling that it is NOT a Sixth Amendment violation. CA Supreme Court ruled: "Defendant's appearance and acceptance of appointed counsel on one charge does not amount to an invocation of Miranda rights with respect to another, uncharged offense" Scenario #2 You are working patrol and one of your partners receives an anonymous and uncorroborated tip that a named wanted person is presently located inside of a particular house (confirmed Ramey Warrant out of a Sonoma County agency). Your partner obtains a copy of the Ramey Warrant and asks you to go out to the residence in question with them in an attempt to locate the wanted person. Your partner knocks on the front door and the door is answered by an unknown female. The female tells you and your partner that the wanted person is not at the residence. However, you can see into the residence and you see the wanted person standing approximately 10 feet away inside of the residence. The female occupant refuses to give you and your partner consent to enter the residence. However, the wanted person is clearly in plain view. Under the plain view doctrine, is the officer permitted to enter to arrest the wanted person? Secnario #2 continued No. The plain view doctrine is for seizing items, not people. Scenario #3 You are working patrol and one of your partners receives an anonymous and uncorroborated tip that a named wanted person is presently located inside of a particular house (confired Ramey Warrant out of a Sonoma County agency) Your partner obtains a copy of the Ramey Warrant and asks you to go out to the residence in question with them in an attempt to locate the wanted person. Your partner knocks on the front door and the door is answered by an unknown female. When the female opens the door, you see the wanted person standing approximately 10 feet away inside of the residence. Do you have the legal authority to enter the residence to effect an arrest of the wanted person pursuant to the Ramey Warrant? Scenario #3 continued Yes What is the burden of proof needed to enter a residence to arrest a wanted person? Scenario #3 continued Reasonable Suspicion People v. Downey (2011 - CA Supreme Court) What issue arises from making an arrest inside of the residence in this situation? Scenario #3 continued 4th Amendment violation to owner/ primary occupant of residence Scenario #4 You are dispatched to a report of a found child. You arrive at the location of the child and determine that she is approx. 4 years old. She is able to point out her apartment, which is across the street from where you found her. 4 year old also states "mommy's sick". You go to the apartment and find fresh vomit outside the front door. You go inside to CTW of the mother and you find her standing in the kitchen of the apartment holding a knife. You try talking with mom to de-escalation the situation, but she isn't responding productively to you. Your Sergeant takes over communciation with mom, telling mom she isn't in trouble and Sgt. just wants to get her help, but mom declines. Sgt. elects to disengage within minutes, leaves/clears units of the scene. Back at the station, you notify CPS and CPS is able to locate and contact the aunt of the 4 year- old . Aunt also offers to assit with the mom, but you decline Aunt's help and you tell Aunt that mom will either be taken to the hospital or jail. Aunt offers to go to the mom's to try to talk to her, you advise the Aunt not to. The inside of mom's apartment catches on fire later that night. Fire rescues the mom, but she alter dies at the hospital. What did we create? How is this problematic for us? Scenario #4 Doe V. Modesto (2016) Court said they did not need to help the mom with no Special Relationship. Aunt argues for Sheila (4 years-old) that Modesto PD was handling it and that the mom was going to jail or hospital. If Aunt knew it wound end that way, she wouldv'e went to the house. This created special relationship Court Discussion- A special relationship is created where the officer makes a represenation (express or implied) that is detrimentally relied upon and causes a foreseeable harm. Second, where the officer engages in an affirmative act that increases the foreseeable risk of harm to the individual. California Supreme Court has "specifically recognized that a duty of care, may arise when the conduct of a patrolman in a situation of dependency results in detrimental reliance on him for protection". Scenario #5 You are dispatched to a report of a shooting that just occured. The reporting party advises that the shooter is fleeing in a red Toyota Corolla with a texas license plate. You arrive on scene moments later and locate the identified vehicle. You positively identify the driver as the shooter via the RP's specific description. After safely bringing the suspect into custody, your sergeant tells you to take care of the vehicle and they leave the scene to go to another priority call for service. Do you process the vehicle on scene or do you call for an evidence tow? Scenario #5 continued Automobile exception- Probable cause search of vehicle is acceptable If you call for an evidence tow, where do you tow the vehicle to? Can you PC search the vehicle after the evidence tow? Scenario #5 continued 1. Tow to Yarbrough 2. 38 days + Graphic redacted due to copywrite Scenario #6 You are dispatched to a report of a suspicious circumstance at Rancho Cotate High Schoo. The RP (school staff) reported that they learned of a social media post in which a Junior at RCHS (17 years old) indicated that other students would regret attending school the next day. This student's teacher, without knowing the above info, reported to school staff that he observed what appeared to be a handgun sticking out of the student's backpack as the student spontaneously left the classroom. The student walked out of class with his backpack and re-entered class approximately 5 minutes later without anything sticking out of his backpack. After RCHS staff retrieved the student and brought him to the officer to ask about the social media post, the teacher alertted office staff to what he thought he saw. School staff searched the student's backpack, which revealed no weapon, School class RPDPS and holds student in office. You get on scene. The firearm observed by the teacher is unaccounted for. With Senate Bill 203 in mind, what do you do? 1. Mirandize and Question about the firearm/ social media post? 2. Do not question the student pursuant to SB 203/ Make attempts to obtain legal counsel for the minor so you can talk to them? 3. Ask the student questions about the firearm/ social media post without admonishments/ legal counsel/ etc. Scenario #6 continued Senate Bill 203 Does not apply, pursuant to Exigent Circumstances/ Emergency Exception Scenario #7 You Mirandize a murder suspect who is in-custody and he asks for an attorney. In disgust that he "lawyered up", you throw down some gruesome pictures of the victim in front of him, whereupon he blurts out he "didn't mean to kill her". Is this a statement admissible at trial to prove guilt? Scenario #7 continued No. Interrogation = Any question or conduct that is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response Scenario #8 You take a suspect into custody, advise them of their rights per Miranda and the suspect agrees to give you a statement. However, 30-minutes into the interrogation, he says, "I think maybe I should have a lawyer." 1. Has the suspect invoked his/her rights to counsel? 2. What is your obligation at this point? Scenario #8 continued 1. No 2. Clarify their meaning behind their ambigous/ equivocal statement. Scenario #9 You are investigation a known suspect for a crime and you develop information that your suspect is in jail serving a sentence for an unrelated assault. You want to go visit him and question him about your separate investigation. 1. Do you need to Mirandize him first? 2. If not, what might you do? Scenario #9 continued 1. No 2. Beheler Scenario #10 You make a warrantless arrest and take the suspect to the station for booking. A few hours later, at the request of the suspect's uncle, an attorney shows up and says he wanted to talk to the arrestee. 1. Are you under any obligation to let the attorney visit the suspect or at least inform the suspect that an attorney is there? 2. What if, at the time the attorney arrives, the suspect has been Mirandized and waived and is in the middle of an interrogation? Scenarion #10 continued 1. Both (to an extent...) with proof of practice. 2. Still have to advise suspect that their attorney is present. If you deny suspect access to their attorney (when attorney has been called upon by suspect or suspect's family)= Misdemeanor (825 PC) Sonoma County DA's Office Update DDA Leslie Butori DDA Ashley Hendon DDA Matt Hubley DDA Tom Gotshall Warrant Case Law Payton Arrest Warrant Steagald Authority to enter residence of wanted person to arrest without search warrant Ramey Warrant to enter resident that wanted person doesn't reside at but you have rs to believe they are present in that residence Warrant Case Law Need an arrest warrant + reason to believe an arrestee is inside right now + reason to believe arrestee resides there Implied authority to enter residence in which arrestee resides Reasonable suspicion suspect resides here, PC that arrestee is inside United States v. Lauter (1995) - Does the address have to match? NO United States V. Gooch (2007) - Nature of the underlying offense - NOT RELEVANT Arrest warrant authorizes the entry Steagald v. United States (1981) - Adequately protects other persons 4th Amendment rights! "Threshold snatching" = warrantless threshold snatching as long as suspect was not ordered to the door by you. If they willingly come to the door & they cross the threshold,, you can technically "snatch" them. Senate Bills & Assembly Bills Graphic redacted due to copywrite AB 1506 DOJ to investigation OIS' involving death of unarmed civilians Effective July 1, 2023 Required by law that the Attorney General (DOJ) investigate OIS' in which the civilian dies and they are deemed to have been unarmed during this incident. Unarmed is being defined as not in possession of a deadly weapon Attorney General is required to post these investigations on AG website, subject to redaction Could be delayed pending Attorney General funding. Assembly Bill 26- Minimum standard for use of force policy Effective January 1, 2022 Additions to the following new Use of Force legislation: Officers required to immediately report excessive force Prohibits retalitation against employees that report excessive force Substantiated "abuse- of -force" allegation = inability to FTO for 3 years (minimum) Duty to intercede + subject to the same punishment as excessive force for failure to intercede Senate Bills & Assembly Bills (continued) AB 490 - positional asphyxia SB 16- Unreasonable Use of Force/ Failure to Intercede/ Unlawful arrests & searches/ Prejudice sustained findings = all subject to public disclosure AB 48- Amended 16352 PC - No chemical agents or kinetic energy projectiles used during unlawful assembly for disbursement AB 89- Minimum qualifications to become a Peace Officer AB 958- Law Enforcement Gangs AB 750- False statements in Police report already a crime, this AB makes it a crime to give another Peace Officer a false statement & that statement is included in a Police report. SB 370- Person who commits a misdemeanor or VOP (misdemeanor) 2021 CA Peace Officers Legislative Digest 2021-2022 AB 2655- "Kobe Bryant" law- Prohibits LEO from capturing deceased person at accident scene for purposes other than official Law Enforcement purposes or a genuine public interest. AB 2617 - GVRO's have to be filed within 3 court days of issuance (California Penal Code Section 18140) SB 1123- Elder Abuse definition change (Elder Abuse & Dependent Adult Abuse means physical abuse, neglect, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment with resulting physical harm or pain or mental suffering). SB 480 - LE uniforms -Adds to 13655PC which states uniforms must have 2/3 badge affixed to chest area, patch on one or both sleeves, Police or Sheriff displayed across chest or back. SB 145 Sex Offender Registration- 290PC doesn't apply to voluntary sodomy/oral copulation/ sexual pentration with a minor when it was non-forcible and voluntary. AB 2717 Children from vehicles - Provides immunity from liability for rightfully requesting a child from a vehicle Vehicle Searches Vehicle Searches Inventory Probable cause searches Data Recorders Probable cause Instrumentality (Vehicle iteself is evidence of a crime- used in kidnap, H&R, homicide, etc.) Indicia searches Protective Sweeps of Vehicles Legal or Illegal? Scope? Protective Sweeps of Vehicles Circumstances in which protective sweep of a vehicle is legal: 1. Officers had detained or arrested an occupant of the vehicle; and 2. Had reason to believe there was a "weapon" inside of the vehicle; and 3. The arrestee or detainee had potential access to the passenger compartment which the search occured (not at full custodial arrest yet- just curbside detention unrestrained) United States v. Ross Landmark automobile exception case https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-2209 Automobile Exception Case law & rulings Scope of search: Officers did not seek "an elephant in a breakbox" (People v. Gallegos, 2002) Legal Justifacation: PC to search + vehicle is in a public place= vehicle can be searched without a warrant SCOTUS= Vehicle search is "not unreasonable if based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not actually been obtained" (United States V. Ross, 1982) "Ross" rule applied even when officers had time to obtain a warrant/ no exigent circumstances/ vehicle had been moved or towed and was placed in a secure lot (United States v. Johns, 1985) SCOTUS= "The justification to conduct such a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized" (United States V. Johns, 1985). Vehicle Searches- Passengers Privacy expectations for passengers are "considerably diminished" and because passengers "will often be engaged in a common enterprise with the driver, and have the same interest in concealing the fruits of evidence of their wrongdoing" (Wyoming v. Houston, 1999) Vehicle Inventory Searches AKA Community Caretaking Searches Vehicle Inventory Searches AKA "Community Caretaking Searches" Three Objectives for Vehicle Inventory Searches: 1. Providing a record of property inside of the vehicle 2. Protecting Officers/ Departments/ City's/ Taxpayers from false claims that property was stolen/ damaged/ lost 3. Protect Officers and others from harm if the vehicle contains a dangerous device or susbstance Vehicle Inventory Searches AKA "Community Caretaking Searches" Vehicle inventory searches restrictions/ Considerations: 1. Towing reasonably necessary: The officer's decision to impound or store the vehicle was reasonable under the circumstances 2. Standard search procedures: The search conducted in accordance with departmental policy or standard procedure. CHP 180's A law enforcement agency may satisfy the "standardization" requirement by mandating the officers complete a CHP 180 form which requires, amoung other things, that officers list all "property" in the vehicle, including radios, tape decks, firearms, tools, and ignition keys; and list damage to the vehicle. Vehicle Impoundment "Whether a vehicle impoundment is warranted under this community caretaking doctrine depends on the location of the vehicle and the police officer's duty to prevent it from creating a hazard to the other drivers or being a target for vandalism or theft." Miranda v. City of Cornelius & the Ninth Circuit Alameda County Point of View *Court of Appeal upheld an inventory search of a 14601 CVC cite & release due to officers impounding the vehicle given that the driver's demonstrated contempt of CA's licensing status, in order to prevent driver from getting back into the vehicle and driving away (reasonable likelihood offense would continue). People v. bush Alameda County Point of View. Vehilce Inventory Searches Inventory Searches Yes, it is a SEARCH - governed by the Fourth Amendment South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) As a result, Supreme Court says we have to have a policy regarding inventory searches due to bestowing agencies with ability to conduct searches without PC and to not be utilized as a pretext tool. Colorado v. Bertine (1987) Discovering evidence or contraband during an inventory search likely will turn into a plain view doctrine search or automobile exception search Two things have to apply to make inventory search lawful 1. Police-initiated tow 2. Agency policy (Non-discretionary policy) Florida v. Wells (1990) Locked containers during inventory searches- probably not a good practice! -Breaking something open to protect properties! -Some agencies have policies that address this People v. Zabala (2018) Disassembling vehicle is NOT a part of the scope of the inventory search -Looks more like rummaging for contraband/ evidence! What are the requirements for conducting community caretaking searches? 1. The need for the search must not outweigh its intrusiveness 2. The officer's primary motivation must be to resolve the pressing issue 3. The officers must do only those things that were reasonably necessary. Community Caretaking Doctrine History People v. Ray (1996) Richmond PD dispatched to an open door. Officer arrived on scene within 5mins, observed interior of residence in shambles. Officer believed any of the following may have occured: Burglary, robbery, assault, etc. No signs of forced entry. Officers knocked several times loudly, announced presense, no answer. Enter home to check welfare, observed large amount of cocaine/ money in plain view. Stepped out, Search Warrant, 10 kilograms (22lbs!) of cocaine. 10-15 for sales later ID"d resident. Superior Court ruled that Richmond PD needed a search warrant to get into the house initally. On appeal, Court of Appeal then ruled Officers had reasonable suspicioun to enter based on their documented exigent circumstances they believed existed. Entered on good faith and went through the correct process to re-enter residence to obtain evidence. Community Caretaking Balancing Test "A search will fall within the community caretaking exception only if a reasonable officer in the same situation "would have perceived a need to act in the proper discharge of his or her community caretaking functions'''. (People V. Ray, 1999) People v. Ovieda & the 4th Amendment People v. Ray's findings of community caretaking exception in absence of exigency is disapproved Santa Barbara PD responded to a report made by Ovieda's family members, saying Ovieda was suicidal with a firearm. Ovieda inside with 2 friends. 1 friend came out, told SBPD that Ovieda threatened suicide, has attempted before, and tried to grab several firearms from his bedroom. 2 friends physically restrained him to keep from killing self. 1 took guns away (grabbed handgun, 2 rifles, an ammunition and placed them in garage)--> Alerted Ovieda's family to call Police. 2nd friend came out with Ovieda, Ovieda searched/ handcuffed Ovieda denied being suicidal/ having firearms. Also told police his roommate was out of state. Protective sweep to ensure no one else was inside hurt or in need of assistance. People v. Ovieda & the 4th Amendment People v. Ray's findings of community caretaking exception in absense of exigency is disapproved. During the protective sweep, Officers detected strong odor of MJ and observed ammunition and items related to MJ cultivation. Large quantities of guns, ammo, and drug-producing equipment were removed from the house & garage. Ovieda motioned to supress the evidence to the warrantless search Two justifications made by SBPD behind this warrantless search: 1. Exigent Circumstances 2. Community caretakings Prosecutors argued that this search fell under the community caretaking doctrine, due to exigency not being applicable. At suppression hearing, two SBPD officers admitted..... Never asked Ovieda for consent Didn't question whether the info provided by the two friends about no one else being inside was truthful/valid Didn't hear noise or movement in house or garage from outside indicating people might be inside Trial court denied Ovieda's motion, finding that the community caretaking exception to the exclusion rule applied Court of appeal upheld the search under the community caretaking exception set forth in People v. Ray California Supreme Court cited Brigham City v. Stuart (2006), saying "law enforcement officers may enter a home without a warrant to render emergency assistance to an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury." However, CA SC ultimately ruled that the facts did not provide officers with established exigent circumstances or the apparent need to render emergncy aid, despite the facts warranting further inquiry to resolve the possibility someone inside required assistance or property needed to protection. CA SC noted that "United States Supreme Court had never applied the concept of a community caretaking search outside the context of an automobile inventory, which was not the context here." Objective facts that elevate speculation to reasonable suspicion were not present or were not articulated... United States V. Venezia Community Caretaking & Vehicle Impoundment Colorado Police Officers were conducting routine patrol when they observed a vehicle without license plates make an illegal turn (failure to signal) into a motel parking lot. Traffic stop, 10-26, License revoked, misdemeanor warrant = 10-15. During inventory search as part of the vehicle impoundment, officers located drugs/ gun holster/ drugs/ distribution paraphernalia. Later established/ confirmed that arrestee was the owner of the vehicle Arrestee motioned to suppress evidence based on unlawful search of the vehicle after grand jury found arrestee guilty of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. Suppression hearing --> District Court upheld ruling due to search of vehicle being consistent with Policy and the search was justified by the Community Caretaking rationale. On an Appeal of the denial of suspect's motion to suppress, suspect argued that the search of the vehicle was not warranted by the fourth amendment's community caretaking exception. The community caretaking exception justifies impoundment when a vehicle is not impeding traffic or impairing public safety & the impoundment is guided by (1) standardized criteria and (2) legitimate community caretaking rational" Court said that the department's policy that states they will impound vehicles when they are driven by an unlicensed driver, car is registered to another person, & officer is unable to confirmt that driver has permission to drive vehicle Courts sighted a five-factor test for determining if an impoundment is was justified by reasonable, non-pretextual community caretaking rationale: 1. Is the vehicle on private property? (In this case, yes) 2. If so, was the property owner consulted? (In this case, No) 3. Did an alternative to impoundment exist? (in this case, yes) 4. Was the vehicle implicated (involved) in a crime? (In this case, no other evidence) 5. Did the vehicle's owner/ drive consent to the impoundment? (In this case, No) Conviction and sentence vacated Graphic redacted due to copywrite Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 1. What do you need for Miranda to apply? 2. What do you need from your suspect (Miranda- related) to cease questioning? Custody Actual v. De Facto Actual Custody -Formal Arrest De Facto Custody -Circumstances combine to create "functional equivalent" of an arrest (Berkemer v. McCarty, 1984.) -When a citizen "has been subject to sufficient restraint by the police to require the giving of Miranda warnings" (People v. Taylor, 1986) Custody Case Law If a reasonable person in the suspect's position would have believed he was under arrest (Yarborough v. Alvarado, 2004) An Officer's plan of action is irrelevant to the reasonable person's mindset due to the officer never expressing their plan of action to the suspect (Berkemer v. McCarty, 1984) Not all restrictions on freedom of movement amount to custody for purposes of Miranda (Howes v. Fields, 2012) Considerations Would a reasonable person in the suspect's position feel as if their freedoms are restricted equivalent to that of a formal arrest? (Handcuffing, movement of suspect, placement in patrol vehicle, etc) Discussion Officer's mindset + presence of probable cause + 1 factor consistent with formal arrest Interrogation vs. interview Case Law The "tone of the officers throughout the interview was coureous and polite" (People v. Spears, 1991) The officer conducted their "inquiry in a conversational tone, and there is no evidence he posed confrontational questions or pressured the defendant in any manner" ( People v. Pilster, 1996) A detention will become custodial if detainee was "subjected to treatment that rendered him 'in custody' for practical purposes" (Berkemer v. McCarty, 1984) Handcuffing is "distinguishing feature" or "hallmark" of an arrest (People v. Pilster, 1996; US v. Newton, 2nd cir 2004) United States v. Leshuk contradicts use of force/ handcuffing being considered a "hallmark" of an arrest Physical Influences Law Enforcement "May sufficiently attenuate an initial display of force used to effect an investigative stop so that no Miranda warning are required" (In re Joseph R, 1998) For this to apply, Case Law indicates that all of the following should exist: 1. At or near the time detainee was handcuffed, he is told he is not under arrest. 2. Explain purpose of handcuffing to detainee and how just because they are handcuffed does not mean they are under arrest (People v. Pilster, 2006) 3. The detainee was not handcuffed for a length period of time. 4. Other overridging circumstances, such as handcuffs + placed in patrol vehicle (US v. Henley, 1993.) Other factors Number of Officers "several" (People v. Taylor, 1986) Accusatory questioning is "highly relevant" (People v. Lopez, 1985) California v. Beheler (1983) The ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest Examples of restraints similar to a normal arrest: Handcuffs, placed in patrol vehicle, number of officers surrounding suspect (more than 2-3), etc Interrogation Direct vs. Indirect Direct Any inquiry about the crime that officers are investigating (Rhode Island v. Innis, 1980) Indirect AKA the "functional equivalent" of an interrogation, defined as any "practice that police should know is reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response" (Rhode Island v. Innis, 1980) Interrogation Indirect 1. Reasonably likely questioning will elicit an incriminating response + known to officer (People v. Wader) 2. Factual link between question and crime under investigation (People v. Wader) 3. Officer's intent to elicit incriminating response (In re Albert) 4. Utilizing interrogation tactics (Rhode Island v. Innis, 1980) 5. Exploiting vulnerabilities such as a suspect's weaknesss/ fears/ other vulnerabliities (Rhode Island v. Innis) 6. Accusations (In re Albert) 7. Confronting with evidence (People v. Sims + opposite Ninth Circuit rulings that contradict very clear Miranda violations) Not Applicable 1. Neutral questions (routine in conjunction with booking, seeking consent, interviewing witnesses) Invocation Case Law At what point can a suspect invoke? Invocation Case Law 1. The suspect was "in custody" at the time, and 2. The invocation occurred during actual or impending "interrogation". United States v. Davis (1994) Set precedence that just because a suspect's words "might" have indicated an invocation, officers would not need to cease interrgation (Unequivocal & unamiguous standard) CA Supreme Court: The standard "is an objective one that asks what a reasonable officer would have understood the nature of the suspect's request to be under all circumstances" (People v. Sauceda-Contreras, 2012) & " the question is not what defendant understood by saying, but what a reasonable officer in the circumstances would have understood defendant to be saying" (People v. Gonzalez, 2005). Polly Klaas: DNA/ Trace Evidence suggestion --> Stood Up and said "well then book me let's get a lawyer and let's go for it" and proceeded to sit down Davis was asked why he killed Polly, and he said "I didn't kidnap that little fucking broad man." Questioning continued --> Davis made several more denials that were later used against him. Argued he initially invoked, CA Supreme Court ruled Davis inherited his own tactics by challenging Detectives to prove their case- video recording showed Davis sit back down indicated he was willing for the interview to continue. Oregon v. Elstad (1985) The exclusionary rule Facts Michael James Elstad was a suspect in a burglary case in Polk County, Oregon. Elstad was taken into custody at his residence. Elstad made incriminating statements at his residence without having been provided a Miranda Advisement (in his own living room) Once at the Polk County Sheriff's Office, Elstad was mirandized. Elstad waived his rights and authored a confession letter Trial Elstad's initial incriminating statement was excluded from trial due to the courts believing it was obtainted with the absense of a necessary Miranda warning. Court included Elstad's written confession Elstad was convicted Ruling Oregon Court of Appeals reversed this ruling, holding that Elstad's confession should have been excluded due to the "coercive impact" of obtaining two statements (one without Miranda & one under Miranda) Supreme Court of the United States held that Elstad's initial statement made at his own him was not subject of police coercion & his second statement was provided after being properly warned of his rights. Separation between statement obtained at his own hom (absent of custody/ interrogation) Missouri v. Seibert Addressing Oregon v. Elstad Facts Patrice Seibert set a fire in her mobile home, which led to a 17-year-old male who resided with her dying in the fire.Seibert was arrested for second-degree murder. Several days after the fire, a Police Officer investigating the case interrogated Seibert without a Miranda Advisement. This led to Seibert confessing. The interrogating officer took a "short break" from questions, returned, mirandized Seibert, and obtained a subsequent confession. Seibert appealed due to the intentional use of the un-mirandized confession being used to get the second Mirandized confession. State of Missouri cited Oregon v. Elstad set precedence that an un-Mirandized confession did not make the suspect uncapable of voluntarily waiving their Miranda rights & confessing "later". Missouri agreed with Seibert and overturned the conviction Missouri v. Seibert Addressing Oregon v. Elstad Question Does the rule form Oregon v. Elstad that a defendant who has made an un-mirandized confession may later waive their Miranda rights to make a second confession (admissible in court) still apply when the initial confession is the result of an intentional decision by a police officer to withhold their Miranda warnings? Ruling In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the post-Miranda confession is only admissable if the Miranda warning and break between confessions are sufficient to give the suspect reasonable belief that they ahve the right to not speak with police. Unequivocal & unabigious invocation "Uh want to speak to an attorney first because I take responsbility for me, but there's other people that.." Your suspect says this to you. Do you: A. Continue the interrogation by interrupting the suspect B. Clarify whether the suspect wants an attorney C. Stop questioning because the suspect invoked his right to counsel People v. Henderson (Cathedral City, CA) A. Officer did this B. You should do this Murder conviction was overturned due to this interrogation tactic Equivocal: Subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse; uncertain as an indication or sign; of uncertain nature or classification. Synonym: Ambiguous Unequivocal: Leaving no doubt Synonym: Unabiguous Are these unequivocal & Unambigious? Maybe I should talke to a lawyer If you can bring me a lawyer I think it'd be probably be a good idea for me to get an attorney I think it's a good idea for me to stop talking California Supreme Court deemed that the following are examples of equivocal & ambiguous statements: Maybe I should talk to a lawyer If you can bring me a lawyer I think it'd be probably be a good idea for me to get an attorney I think it's a good idea for me to stop talking Statements need to be unequivocal/ unambiguous Miranda Invocations- History Courts have ruled that the following did not constitute an invocation of the right to counsel: 1. Should I have somebody here talking for me, is this the way it's supposed to be? (People v. Cunningham,2015) 2. There wouldn't be an attorney running around here now, would there? (People v. Clark, 1992) 3. I'd like to know how long it will take to get an attorney. I would like to talk to you in the interim period but I would like to try to get one- you know, get the process started" (US v. Wysinger, 2012) Miranda Violations & Civil Rights Vega V. Tekoh (Los Angeles - 2022) Facts Terence Tekoh was working as a nursin assistant at a medical center in LA when he was accused of sexual assault of a patient who was heavily sedated. LASO Deputy Vega contacted Tekoh at the hospital. After an hour of questioning, Vega obtained a written confession from Tekoh (determined ot be a violation of Miranda in prior court proceedings). Court proceedings led to a mistrial and acquittal of Tekoh with the decision revolving a confirmed Miranda violation Lawsuit Following acquittal, Tekoh sued Vega, Vega's Sergeant, LASO, County of LA. Civil jury ruled in favor of Defendants. Tekoh appealed to the Ninth Circuit who overrruled the jury's verdict Miranda Violations & Civil Rights Vega v. Tekoh (Los Angeles -2022) SCOTUS Argument While Tekoh's attorney sought to hold Vega civilly liable for not providing Tekoh with Miranda rights. Vega's attorney argued that Miranda rights are Constitutionally protected, but Miranda rights were not a 5th amendment right. SCOTUS Ruling Not civilly liable for not providing Tekoh with Miranda rights/ violating Miranda Winter 2022 Case Law People v. McDaniel Under what circumstances may officers order passengers in a stopped vehicle to remain inside? Two LASD Deputies observed a traffic violation and conducted a traffic enforcement stop. Vehicle came to a stop and the front passenger opened the passenger door and motioned as if he was going to run away. Deputy ordered the passenger back into the vehicle, and the passenger complied. Driver ultimately arrested for driving unlicensed & elected to impound the vehicle. Prior to conducting an inventory search, Deputies asked passender to step out of the vehicle. As passenger stepped out, a Deputy noticed a large bulge that resembled a gun in the passender front right pants pocket. Pat search = loaded 9mm semi-auto handgun Forensics of handgun linked the handgun to a double homicide that occured 5 days prior, and McDaniel was ultimately arrested for the double homicide and 664/187 PC related to two others injured by gunfire. McDaniel argued that the firearm should have been suppressed due to an unlawful search (fruit from the poisonous tree). Court disagreed, convicted, sentenced to death. McDaniel further argued that he was seized unlawfully when he was ordered back into the vehicle. CA Supreme Court disagreed. McDaniel also argued that he could not be lawfully Seized without reason to believe he consistuted a threat. Court said he did based on intial action of attempting to flee from the vehicle prior to being contacted by Deputies. Court upheld the conviction. Winter 2022 Case Law People v. Cuadra BLM protests in LA led to LA County implementing a curfew from 6pm-6am. At approx. 0215 hours, two LASD Deputies located Oscar Cuadra standing near a vehicle in a motel parking lot. Deputies stated they did not intend to cite Cuadra for curfew violation at the time of inital contact, but they were wondering why he was there at that hour given all of the crime occuring as a result of the protests which led to them contacting him. Deputies as Cuadra if he know about the curfew, and he said know. One of the deputies asked Cuadra to walk over to the fornt of their patrol car. Instead, Cuadra put both hands in the air and walked backwards. At this point, a Deputy noticed a bulge in his pants consistent with the shape of a firearm. Cuadra spontaneously stated he had a firearm. Deputies ordered him to the ground. Pat search revealed a loaded .38 caliber revolver. Charged with a felon in possesion of a firearm. Another "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument. Appellate Court agreed with Cuadra in a 2-1 decision. Dissenting Judge in the 2-1 decision cited the dangers of activities in LA County as a result of the riots, which showed reasonableness for the Deputies being on "high alert" (believed it was actually a detention initally). Other two judges called them "protestors" vs. "rioters" Supreme Court of the United States There is no seizure without actual submission; otherwise, there is at most an attempted seizure. (Brendlin v. California) What would have happened if Cuadra walked away? The issue is "not whether the citizen perceived that he was being ordered to restrict his mvoement, but whether the officer's words and actions would have conveyed that to a reasonable person" (California v. Hodari D) Cuadra's "belief" if he was detained is irrelevant. The "officer's uncommunciated state of mind is irrelevant in assessing whether a seizure triggering Foruth amendment scrutiny has occured" ( In re Manuel G) Uncommunicated intentions of Deputies is irrelevant. The "reasonable suspicion inquiry falls considerably short of 51% accuracy" (Kansas v. Glover) Winter 2022 Case Law People v. Sumagang Did a detective conduct an illegal two-part interrogation in obtaining a confession from the defendant? Monterey County So received a 911 call of a suspicious vehicle in a remote area of the county- RP soon after hung up. A Deputy responded, located the vehicle. Upon approach of the vehicle, the Deputy saw Sumagang & a 20 year-old female laying down in the back seat (female on top of Sumgang). Deputy knocked on the window- Sumagang woke up but the Deputy could tell that the femal was deceased. Sumagang told Deputies that he and the female made a "suicide pact" & they took "a bunch of Klonopin" and "drank as much Tequila as they could". Sumagang was arrested (hospital clearance --> jail). Detective contacted Sumagang at jail. Detective did NOT mirandize Sumagang because he "wanted to see what Sumagang had to say first" Interrogation part 1 (no miranda) Lasted ~25min Sumagang stated that after they took the pills & drank the Tequila, the femal easked him to "choke me out in the back please", so he did & provided a detailed account two-minute break Interrogation part 2 (miranda) Lasted ~45 min Explained female being suicidal, asking him to strangle her. he claimed to not kill himself because he "forgot" Motion to suppress all statements due to Detective failing to obtain Miranda waiver. Court suppressed Sumgangs initial un-mirandized statement, but held his subsequent statement due to Sumagang waiving miranda prior. Two-step history SCOTUS deemed two-step for purposes of avoiding Miranda illegal (2004) Court considered the following: 1. Intense pre-waiver conversation 2. Interrogation tactics during pre-waiver statement 3. Overlapping content 4. Time lapse (short) 5. Same officers conducting both interviews court suppressed both statements & overturned conviction Winter 2022 Case Law French v. Merrill (1st Cir.) Knock and Talk & the Fourth Amendment Initial Report French & Nardone attended University of Maine and had a continuing DV relationship. French had most recently been arrested for DV but charges were dropped due to insufficient evidence. ~7 months later at approx. 0300 hours, Officers responded to a report that French had broken into Nardone's home and stole a cell phone. Officers elected to go knock and talk at French's residence Knock and Talk Initial Knock = no answer Officers continued knocking & yelling for him to come to the door French eventually answered, admitted to being at Nardone's earlier, denied burglary occuring. French was arrested for burglary. Charge dismissed due to lack of cooperation from Nardone Winter 2022 Case Law French V. Merril (1st Cir.) Lawsuit French sued officers due to belief that the knock and talk violated the Fourth Amendment Trial court ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity since their actions did not vilate "clearly established" legislation (knock and talks=legal) Knock and talk issues Although deemed "legitimate" and "accepted" investigative tactic (U.S. v. Roberts, U.S. v. Lucas), there are restrictions.... Officers must conduct themselves in a manner that is consistent with that of invited guests (Florida v. Jardines, 2013) Officers actions "exceeded the limited scoping of the customary social license." Due to this, officers were NOT awarded qualified immunity Fourth Amendment Case Law Fourth Amendment Case Law Floyd v. City of New York (2013) Decade long pattern of conducting pat searches outside of legal requirement resulted in massive lawsuit. United States v. Jones (2012) "Jones test" or "physical trespass test" Vehicle GPS case attached to undercarriage of vehicle, tracked movements for approx. 30 days. No warrant or permission. Government argued it's not a search due to tracking movements of vehicle in public area (said they could've done surveillance and got same result). Arrested for drug trafficking SCOTUS ruled it was a search due to intruding (trespassing) upon vehicle by touching vehicle without permission Search=physical instrusion on a constitutionally-protected area with the intent to gather information 4th Amendment protects persons, houses, papers (mail, electronic records, etc), effects (personal property - car, purse, backpack, etc) Taylor v. City of Saginaw (2019) Chalking tires without permission/ warrant Jones test determined this is search due to government touching vheicle with intent to gather information (determine if vehicle moved). Case ongoing thorugh District & Circuit courts, no disposition yet. Government trying to articulate lawfulness of search & circumstances. Verdum v. City of San Diego- Ninth Circuit determinated this falls under the administrative search exception & a search warrant is not required Fourth Amendment Case Law Florida v. Jardines (2014) Bringing a drug dog onto curtilage =search Need PC Can bring for knock & talk but not for purposes of detecting narcotics Curtilage=extension of your house Hester v. United States (1924) Rural areas & real property (woods/ fields/ etc) Not protected by 4th Amendment Open Fields doctrine The special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, is not extended to the open fields Oliver v. United States (1984) No expectation of privacy legitimately attaches to open fields No trespassing signs = Not police repellant! "Doesn't Matter" United States v. Dunn (1985ish -SCOTUS - 4 factors to determine curtilage v. open field) 1. How close it is to the house 2. Is area contained and house is included in closure 3. Owner sheilded area from view from people walking/driving by 4. Nature/use of area (pool with bbq, etc v crops) Consider all 4 and make a good guess! California v. Ciraolo (1986) Flying over and making observations onto curtilage SCOTUS said if airplace is in navigable airspace (where airplane should be) and Officer see's something from plain view (from plane), this is NOT considered a search. DO NOT need a warrant + CAN use sensory tools Katz v. United States (1967) Drones Nothing decided yet District Court in Michigan ruled it to be a search Most drone usage are governed by Statutory Law Plain view doctrine + plain view seizure Horton v. California (1990); Arizona v. Hicks (1987) 1. Officer must by present 2. Item in plain view 3. Immediately apparent to be evidence or contraband 4. Seizure requires no further intrusion upon an expectation of privacy United States v. Watson (1976) Detainee or arrestee CAN give consent (it is not coerced!) Unlawful detention=consent is automatically rendered invalid 10-15 asking for consent to search Response is not "testimonial evidence". Therefore, Miranda not required Testimonial evidence = expresses one's thoughts or beliefs Giving permission is not testimonial in nature. Therefore, not covered 5th Amendment Miranda warnings give consent more valid, but not required (Miranda doesn't hurt) Georgia v. Randolph (2006) Domestic Disturbance, wife outside discloses husband has cocaine upstairs and offers to show it to officers. Husband inquires, officer tells him. Husban states he does not give consent. They locate cocaine and arrest Husband Supreme Court = NOT valid consent Physically present objector will overrule the consent of the other party in common areas Areas that are objectively consenter's will over rule objector's Objection via telephone- principal of the case=accept objection Fernandez v. California (2014) Objector not present anymore; cites Randolph Objector must be physically present to object Court rulled that at the time of the search objector was not present to object Suspect/objector was legally arrested, so his objection left with him Frient driving your vehicle and you are not present, friend can consent to search Overnight guest can consent to area in which overnight guest is immediately controlling or residing in (exclusive area) Overnight guest can also consent or decline entry into a home, but primary resident's work will rule greater. For consent, owner's work will always supersede guests' word aside from areas immediately accessible to guest (with exception to interior of vehicle) Investigative Stops "Under ordinary circumstances, when the police have only RS to make an investigatory stop... using handcuffs and other restraints will violate the 4th Amendment." (Washinton v. Lambert, 1996) Need to articulate safety concern or flight risk to justify handcuffing. Search Incident to Arrest Chimel v. California (1969)- Search of Areas Beyond the Person Immediately accessible to arrestee at time suspect is behing searched Generally refers to persons wingspan Can't check areas after arrestee is removed and placed in patrol vehicle- only accessibly if suspect is still present United States v. Robinson (1973)- Search of Person Can search person any time during custodial arrest Arizona v. Gant (2009) -Search of Vehicles Comparison to New York v. Belton (old case overruled by Gant) Unsecure arrestee..... Can search vehicle if you have reason to believe evidence of crime(of arrest) is present in the vehicle (Ex. DUI) Warrant arrests = unless officer is aware of specific facts regards to that warrant, warrant is a new offense and can't really develop reason to beleive that the vehicle contains evidence of the crime of arrest (warrant) - Maltese Falcon case example Not just applicable to cars... US v. Davis United States v. Davis (2021) Subject flees from vehicle pursuit on foot. Located with backpack, dropped backpack. Considered a search incident to arrest On appeal, court ruled that it wasn't "reasonable for {the officer} to believe that Davis could have accessed the backpack at the time of search" due to Davis being secured. People v. Dekalb (2019) When the officer conducted the search, DeKalb was handcuffed and under the officer's supervision seated about 10 feet away from the backpack. He therefore had no access to or control over it, so this exception to the warrant requirement does not apply." Jail requirement to search backpack OR place backpack in vehicle and conduct inventory search of vehicle prior to tow Inevitable Discovery rule (exception to exclusionary rule Book into Jail= backpack will get searched anyway Accelerated Inventory search Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court (2004) = Need at least RS of unlawful activity to demand ID -Unless passenger is violating law/subject of T-stop, cannot demand ID Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) = can order passengers out of vehicle during T-stop Think about demanding someone out of vehicle and it turning into a Use of Force.... have a good reason for removing passenders from vehicle during T-stop in which they are not primary violator! Maryland v. Wilson (1997) = A passenger is no more or less dangerous than driver during T-stop Brendlin v. California (2007) & Arizona v. Johnson (2009)= Passengers are detained for duration of the stop - primarily for safety purposes Michigan v. Long (1983) Basically takes Terry v. Ohio and extends it to vehicles 2 requirements = lawful basis for detention & reasonable suspicion to believe that there is a dangerous weapon within the vehicle Can order occupants out and can search vehicle where dangerous weapons could be immediately concealed or obtained from Examples of when this may occur: -BOL for armed 211, find vehicle, pat down people, frisk vehicle If you have RS for terry of person, you have RS for long of vehicle. Lawfulness of possession of a weapon.... most states agree that lawfulness of weapon possession is NOT a factor (United States v. Robinson - Dwight from the Office) High-risk stop in which all occupants are detained & not able to access vehicle = still can frisk vehicle if operating under RS 2 places bad guys in car will end up after stop-vehicle or Jail ! Therefore, can still frisk vehicle Does NOT have to be a conventional weapon - can be anything you believe could be a weapon California v. Carney (1985) RV Search in San Diego Knew he resided in RV and drove it around Drug sales/ young man obtained marijuana in exchange for sexual favors RV had been in a parking lot Contact with Carney @ RV/ asked for consent to search/ declined/ searched anyway/ found MJ Courts ruled that the RV was being used more like a vehicle than residence therefore the automobile exception applied If RV would've been in campground where primary function would've been residence, automobile exception would've not applied Extended to boats, motorcycles, tows, etc Reduced exceptation of privacy in vehicles in comparison to other constitutionally-protected items (residences, papers, etc) United States v. Johns (1985) Officers stopped Johns driving truck, PC search for drugs and found package in vehicle. Didn't search package yet(could've under Ross) 3 days later searched package at station & found drugs Johns argues they should've had warrant - no exigency anymore so needed a warrant SCOTUS said no warrant necessary- if they could've searched package that day on the side of the road, no reason to take it and search it at a later time United States v. Gastiaburo (1994) PC search of vehicle during T-stop, cocaine (enough for Federal charges related to cocaine trafficking charges) 38 days later, Gastiaburo's GF shows up at State Police Area Office where vehicle is kept out back. Asked Trooper if he found heroin and gun in car? No. Because you didn't look in the right place. Behind radio = stash of heroin & firearm. Finds it. Gastiaburo's argument = needed a search warrant 4th Circuit said automobile exception applies, per Johns Longest found from initial seizure to search upheld Search is lawful, but may have some chain of custody issues Automobile exception applies at non-police impound lots as well PC roadside + roadside + take custody of vehicle= doesn't mean we can search vheicle every day Gastiaburo= new information provided Does not extend to people in vehicle obviously. Collins v. Virginia (2018) Vehicles on curtilage & automobile exception MC under tarp- reason to believe it was stolen Officer walks up driveway to tarp, lifts tarp, runs VIN, confirmed 10851, seized MC Collins argued warrantless search of MC- needed warrant for the search, which was lifting of tarp People argued automobile exception VA Supreme Court ruled in favor of People; SCOTUS said 4th Amendment violation was entering curtilage + automobile exception isn't exception to warrantless entry onto curtilage to conduct search. If Police are on curtilage for lawful purpose + PC to believe vehicle contains evidence of a crime = good to go. However, needed a SW to enter curtilage in this case SCOTUS has ruled that there is not a greater 4th Amendment protection than a residence, and curtilage is an extension of the residence! Fourth Amendment Case Law Blakes v. Superior Court (2021) Marijuana in vehicles Sacramento County CO located a vehicle driving with unlawfully tinted windows. A registration checked revealed that the vehicle was registered to Derrick Blakes, who showed to have a suspended license + prior felon in possession of firearms arrest. Traffic stop --> upon contact with Blakes, Deputy detected the odor of marijuana. Directed Blakes out of vehicle, pat down with negative results, told Blakes the vehicle would be searched due to the odor of burnt marijuana. Deputy identified this as a probable cause search of the vehicle. Searched yielded marijuana, scale, handgun. Blakes' motion to suppress based on an unlawful search was denied by initial Judge & Trial court Third Court of Appeals Insufficient Probable Cause Two possible illegal uses of marijuana in this situation: 1. DUI (No driving observations or investigation into Blakes' sobriety) 2. Open Container (No open container(s) viewed by any on-scene Deputies) Court of Appeals stated, based on Deputy's observation testimony & lack of evidence, odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle, insufficient PC for either of the two hypothetical scenarios. Also cited lack of indication that marijuana had recently been smoked inside the vehicle Third Court of Appeals overturned the conviction in this case due to lack of PC for automobile exception Third court of appeal also ruled that driving on a suspended license was NOT a valid community caretaking rationale to impound the vehicle - the decision to impound the vehicle was a pretext to conduct an investigative search! People v. Nault (2021) DUI Blood Draws Nault, who had four prior DUI convictions, crashed while DUI and killed another driver. By the time CHP got on scene, Nault was semi-conscious in the rear of an ambulance Pants were soaked in alcohol + injured and attended to by EMT/ Medics Nault initially stated he had been drinking beer, but could not give full statement due to injuries. Nault moved to helicopter for emergency transport before CHP officer could try to obtain breath sample. With Nault being unconscious and going into surgery soon, another CHP officer assigned to the investigation did not believe he had time to get a McNeely warrant, so he directed hospital staff to draw a sample of Nault's blood & that he'd get a warrant after the fact. Officer did get a warrant later and delivered it to the hospital shortly after obtianing it. Blood analysis = .14 (approximately 2 hours after the collision). Jury convicted him of second -degree murder & gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. Sentenced to 15 to life in State Prison Nault appealed, stating that the warrantless blood draw was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights Second district court of appeal stated: Blood draw is a search governed by the Fourth Amendment (Birchfield v. North Dakota) Warrantless blood draw is unreasonable unless justified by a recognized exception (Missouri v. McNeely) Exigency is a recognized exception Exigency includes: BAC evidence dissipating, AND A pressing health, safety, or law enforcement need takes priority over warrant application Court felt this situation met the exigent circumstances exception De-escalation Graphic redacted due to copywrite Hayes v. County of San Diego (2011) Non-criminal barricade + De-escalation Domestic disturbances CFS from neighbor ~2100 hrs to Shane Hayes' residence (heard screaming from inside of residence) Hayes' GF contacted at front door by Deputy King, told SDSO that they argued about Hayes Suicide attempt (inhaling exhaust fumes). No physical altercation, GF worried about Hayes harming self due to other prior suicide attempts. Deputy did not ask GF about specifics of Hayes' suicide attempts. GF confirmed no firearms in house. Second Deputy (Deputy Greer) arrived on scene, both Deputies entered residence, UNK if under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Found Hayes in kitchen with right hand behind back. Deputy King ordered Hayes to show hands. Hayes did while taking one-two steps toward Deputy King, but had large knife in R hand pointed "tip down". Hayes allegedly told Deputies to "go ahead" and take him to jail if that was their intention. Deputy King immediately fired two shots at hayes while standing about 6-8ft away from him. Deputy Greer then fired two additonal rounds Hayes v. County of San Diego (2011) Non-criminal barricade + De-escalation Prior's at this residence Prior arrests Prior 5150s Under the influence Access to any weapons Did either Deputy provide verbal commands to Hayes, such as "drop the knife" or "stop walking toward us" or "get on the ground"? The mere fact that a suspect possesses a weapon does not justify deadly force. (Haugen v. Brosseau, 2003) CA Supreme Court ruled that liability can arise from tactical conduct and decisions employed by law enforcement preceding the use of deadly force if the conduct and decisions leading to the use of deadly force show, as part of the totality of the circumstances, that the use of deadly force was unreasonable. Appellete Court reversed ruling that "use of force was objectively reasonable as a matter of law" Public Duty Doctrine Public Duty Doctrine Absent a special relationship between the government entity and the injured individual, the governmental entity will not be liable for injury to an individual....The governmental entity owes a duty to the public in general. Graphics redacted due to copywrite A doctrine in tort law: a government entity (as state or municipality) cannot be held liable for the injuries of an individual resulting from a public officers or employee's breach of duty owed to the public as a whole as distinguished from a duty owed to the particular individual Public Duty Doctrine Codes to Know 1. 820.2 A public employee is not liable for an injury resulting from his act or omission where the act or omission was the result of the exercise of the discretion vested in them 2. 845 Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service. 3. 846 Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury caused by the failure to make an arrest or by the failure to retain an arrested person in custody. 4. 856(a)(1) Neither a public entity nor a public employee acting within the scope of his employment is liable for injury resulting from determining in accordance with any applicable enactment: Whether to confine a person for mental illness or addiction. 5. 856(c) Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee form liability for injury proximately caused by his negligent or wrongful act or omission in carrying out or failing to carry out: a. A determination to confine or not to confine a person for mental illness or addiction b. The terms or conditions of confinement of a person for mental illness or addiction 6. 856.2(a) Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for: a. An injury caused by an escaping or escaped person who has been confined for mental illness or addiction b. An injury to, or the wrongful death of, an escaping or escaped person who has been confined for mental illness or addiction. A police officer's failure, upon stopping an automobile, to advise the pasenger to leave the vehicle and find other transportation was not an actionable breach of duty to the passenger- City of Sunnyvale v. Supervior Court (1988) An officer owed no duty of care to a tow truck driver struck by a passing vehicle while working an accident scene because the officer did not create or increase the risk of harm that led to the injuries Minch v. CHP (2006) No duty existed where a police officer, upon responding to a disturbance, confiscated a gun that was later returned to the individual through department procedure and was used sometime thereafter to shoot the complaintant because the initial seizure of the weapon did not establish a special relationsip with complainant that would contiunue indefinately- Baker v. City of Los Angeles (1986_ A police officer owed no duty to order an accident victim who had sustained a spinal injury not to leave the scene Camp v. State of California (2010) Police officers who recognized an assailant as a likely perpetrator of a prior assault, and conducted surveillance of assailant in a Landromant in which the victim was present, did not establish a special relationship between the officers and the victim to impose a duty of the officers to protect the victim from the assailant Davidson v. City of Westminster (1982) A police officer, who stopped a motorcyclist for speeding but did not perform field sobriety test, had no legal duty to use due care to recognize signs of intoxication and prevent the motorcyclist from continuing to drive, and therefore, was not liable when the driver was involved in an acident ten minutes later Hucko v. City of San Diego (1986) Public Duty Doctrine 5150 W&I 51540 W&I Do we have an obligation to place someone on a mental health hold when the elements of 5150 W&I are met? Graphic redacted due to copywrite. Special Relationships Special Relationship Triggers 1. Where the officer makes a representation (expressed or implied) that is detrimentally relied upon and causes foreseeable harm or 2. Where the officer engages in an affirmative act that increases the foreseeable risk of harm to the individual 1. Mann v. California (CHP 1977) a. Officer pulls up and waits for tow. Tow gets on scene, Officer leaves. Court says special relationship created when Officer arrived to assist driver because driver relied on Officer b. If officer never stopped for that vehicle, special relationship would've never been created c. Court sited officer as traffic investigator when reviewing safety precautions officer should've taken (flares, etc) d. Driver who hit "victim" was 81 years old & blind in one eye, but officer was still deemed liable. 2. Morgan v. Yuba County (1964) a. Victim of case asked detectives for warning for when suspect got released. Detective said yes. Didn't. Suspect found victim and hurt victim. Victim detrimentally relied upon detectives. 3. Unknown College Case (2018) a. College police = student mentally ill, verbal threats, college did nothing to warn other students. College police attached to college. Special relationship with the students. 4. Davidson v. Westminster (1982) a. NOT liable b. Laudromat, guy went in and started stabbing someone. Victim survives, sues cops who were sitting outside laundromat and saw suspect walk in to laundromat. c. Court ruled in favor of cops. Victim had no clue cops were there, no promises made, victim was not RELYING on Officers 5. Sunnyvale DUI case (1986) a. Reagan was under 21. FST on two subjects in vehicle, not DUI. Officers poured out alcohol, cited for open containers/speeding/etc. b. hours later, other driver (DUI) drives car and crashes, Reagan gets hurt c. Reagan claimed she relied on officers judgement to determine if they could drive d. Officers said neither party DUI at the time, no special relationship bc they didn't tell unlicensed driver to take control of vehicle and no one DUI. Not our fault what happens later. e. Officers NOT liable Doe v. City of Modesto Amanda (mom) & daughter (Shiela) Amanda = undiagnosed mental illness, family says Bipolar Disorder. Amanda called 911 & told Dispatch she knew Police were outside and she would be out in a few, will send daughter now. Dispatcher was confused bc no Police on scene there. Dispatch tried to question Amanda more, but not going anywhere. Dispatch initiated CTW Officers 10-97, find Sheila walking down the street. Sheila said "mommy's sick" and pointed to her house. Placed into protective custody. Officers go to house, fresh vomit outside, go in to CTW. Find Amanda in there with knife, hold knife. Back at house, officers trying to talk to Amanda, not cooperating, Sgt takes over comms, tells her shes not in trouble just wanna get her help, Amanda declines. Sgt disengages, leaves/clears scene (within minutes) Officer at station calls CPS, CPS contacts Amanda's sister to pick up Sheila. Amanda's sister offers help, Modesto PD says no and Amanda will either go to jail or hospital. Amanda offers to go to Amanda's house with them to try to help. Modesto PD advises her not to. Amanda's residence catches fire. FD rescues Amanda, but she later dies. Amanda's sister sues Modesto PD due to seeing Amanda was sick, needed help. Court said they did not need to help Amanda with no special relationship. Amanda's sister argues for Sheila that Modesto PD owed Sheila the protection of Amanda. Amanda sister's then argues that Modesto PD owed protection of Amanda to Amanda's sister due to a certain Officer told her NOT to go to the house because Modesto PD was handling it and that Amanda was going to jail or hospital. If Amanda knew it would end that way, she would've went to house. This created Special Relationship Court Discussion- A special relationship is created where the officer makes a representation (express or implied) that is detrimentally relied upon and causes a foreseeable harm. Second, where the officer engages in affimative act that increases the foreseeable risk of harm to the individual. California Supreme Court has "specifically recognized that a duty of care may arise when the conduct of a patrolman in a stiaution of dependency results in detrimental reliance on him for protection" Special relationship case Does your language create a special relationship Pruneyard shopping center v. Robins (1980) 1975 High school students set up a table at Pruneyard shopping center in campbell, CA for petition/ signatures. Shopping center security asked them to leave as they had not obtained permission to do this from shopping center owner. Students sued for first amendment violation. Santa Clara Superior Court ruled against the students citing Lloyd Corp v. Tanner (1972) in which SCOTUS refused to find a first ammendment right of freedom of speech on someone else's private property. California Supreme Court reversed Santa Clara Superior Court's ruling and instead ruled in favor of students. Pruneyard owner petitioned SCOTUS, who ruled in favor of California Supreme Court Developments New Jersey, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Puerto Rico have adopted Pruneyard rule. 2001 Golden Gateway decision - CA Freedom of Speech rights do not apply to private apartment complexes, but still upheld Pruneyard ruling (4-3) 2002 Costco decision- Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District = stand-alone store ruling Direct interference with customents, employees, etc CA Supreme Court denied further review of this case 2007 Fashion Valley Mall (San Diego) In addition to upholding Pruneyard decision, allowed handouts during petitioning (4-3) 2012 California Supreme Court reaffirmed Pruneyard but emphasized common areas of shopping centers 2013 Ralph's (Sacramento) and Union workers argued about Union workers freedom of speech on Ralph's private properrt after Union workers were removed from the front of a Ralph's store in 2008. California Supreme Court upheld ruling in favor of union workers, so long as it doesn't interfere with business/ block ingress & egress. SCOTUS declined to hear case. No influence of Pruneyard decision. California Legislation Changes Senate Bill 990 Corrections: County of Release Requires an incarcerated person, absent evidence that parole transfer would present a threat to public safety, to be released to the county in the location of a post-secondary educational or vocational training program of the incarcerated person's choice, or of a work offer, the incarcerated person's family, outpatient treatment, or housing. Assembly Bill 1613 Theft: Jurisdiction Expands the territorial jurisdiction in which the Attorney General can prosecute specified theft offenses and associated offenses connected together in their commission to the underlying theft offenses. Organized retail theft occuring across multiple jurisdictions can be prosecuted in any of the jurisdictions if shown that they are connected by the same person(s) under the same organized scheme. Can take into consideration where theft occurred, where stolen items were received, and where the suspect traveled from. Assembly Bill 2356 Theft: Aggregation Amends California Penal Code Section 487 If the value of property taken exceeds $950 over the course of distinct but related acts, the value of the property may be aggregated to charge a count of grand theft if the acts are motivated by one intention, one general impulse, and one plan Assembly Bill 1899 Crimes: False Personation Under existing law, it is unlawful to wear or use the authorized uniform, badge, insignia, emblem, device, label, certificate, card, or writing of a peace officer, firefighter, and employee of a government agency or department. Current legislation only applies to wearing or using such items with the intent of fraudulently impersonating an officer or employee and NOT for purposes of defrauding another person. Current legislation also does not include any reference to impersonation via electronic means. This Assembly Bill broadens the limitations of impersonation to include through/on an internet website or by other electronic means. Assembly Bill 2185 Forensic Examinations: Domestic Violence Provides domestic violence victims access to medical evidentiary examinations, free of charge, by local SART's. Assembly Bill 2282 Hate Crimes: Nooses, crosses, and swastikas Equalizes the penalty for the crimes of hanging a noose, displaying a symbol of hate, including a Nazi swastika, and burning or desecrating religious symbols, on specified property, for the purpose of terrorizing, and expands and aligns the places where this conduct is prohibited for each offense. Changes the crime classification of hanging a noose on private property with intent to terroize from a misdemeanor to a wobbler Completely criminalizes display of Nazi swastika for puposes of terrorizing a person (not to include acient symbols that are associated with Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism (symbols of peace). Assembly Bill 2294 Diversion of repeat retail theft crimes A peace officer may take into custody a person who has cited, arrested, or convicted for a misdemeanor of felony theft from a store in the previous six months or if there is PC to believe the person committed organized retail theft, Courts may issue a bench warrant if a defendant has been cited or arrested for misdemeanor or felony theft from a store and has FTA'd in court in connection with that charge or those charges within the past six months. Authorizes a city attorney, district attorney, or county probation dept. To create a diversion program for persons who commit a theft offense or repeat theft offenses. Senate Bill 357 Loitering for purposes of engagine in a prostitution offense Eliminates "intent" loitering with intent of engaging in a prostitution offense Does NOT decriminalize soliciting or engaging in sex work, just eliminates the "loitering for purposes of offense" Proposed bill cites "Disproportionate criminalization" of specific ethnic/ gender groups due to this offense. Proposed bill alleges that the loitering with intent offense "perpetuates violence towards sex workers" Senate Bill 1081 Disorderly conduct: peeping, recording & distribution of intimate images Amends California Penal Code Section 647 Defines "intentionally causes an image to be distributed" to mean "when that person arranges, specifically requests, or intentionally causes another person to distrubute the image: Defines "distribute" to include the exhibiting in public or giving possession Leaves ambiguity to the complete definition of "distribution" as to whether the distribution requires a transfer of an image from one person to antoher or if publicly displaying an image is sufficient Senate Bill 1228 Criminal procedure: DNA Samples Prohibits law enforcement from uploading victim DNA samples for exclusion purposes to DNA databases. Prohibits law enforcement from comparing victim DNA if obtained for victim exclusion purposes Assembly Bill 655 Crimes: Intercepting telephone comms. adds California Penal Code Section 13680 Requires LE Agencies to investigate current & prospective peace officers regarding engagement/participation in hate groups and public expressions of hate. Sustained findings= grounds for denial of hiring or termination Falls under SB2 reporting Agency must deny employement to an applicant who has engaged in a specified hate-related activity in the past 7 years AND since 18 years old Applicants cannot be ineligible if they have not engaged in hate-related activities for at least 7 years Defines "hate group" Academic research and undercover work are protected exceptions. Senate Bill 960 Public Employment: Peace officers citizenship Removes provisions of existing law requiring peace officers to either be a citizen of the United States or be a permanent resident who is eligible for and has applied for citizenship. Requires that a peace officer is legally authorized to work in the United States under federal law. Assembly Bill 2156 Firearms: Manufacturers Amends California Penal Code Section 29010. Reduces the number of firearms that person, firm , or corportation may manufacture in a calendar year without have a state license to manufacture firearms from 50 to 3. A violation of this is a misdemeanor. Assembly Bill 2239 Firearms: Prohibited Persons Creates a 10-year firearm prohibition for individuals convicted (on or after January 1, 2023) of the following: 1. Child abuse involving violence 2. Elder abuse involving violence Assembly Bill 2644 Custodial Interrogation Effective January 1, 2024 Prohibits LE from employing threats, physical harm, deception, or psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics, as specified, during a custodial interrogation of a person 17 years of age or younger. Does not prevent LE from utilizing a lie detector test as long as it is voluntary and not obtained through any of the same manners. Deception includes, but is not limited to, the knowing communication of flase facts about evidence, misrepresenting the accuracy of the facts, or false statements regarding leniency. Psychologically manipulative interrogation tactics include, but are not limited to, maximization & minimization. Employing the "false" or "forced" choice strategy, where the person is encouraged to select one of two (both incriminatory) choices with one being characterized as morally or legally justified or excusable Assembly Bill 1641 Sexually violent predators Requires a sexually violent predator on conditional release or outpatient status to be monitored by GPS until the person is inconditionally discharged. Assembly Bill 2000 Motor Vehicle Exhibition of speed and speed contests- off street parking facilities Amends California Vehicle Code Section 23109. Expands the crimes of motor vehicle exhibition of speed and speed contest to include parking lots & off street parking facilities Assembly Bill 2147 Pedestrians A peace officer shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation involving an illegal crossing of the street unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power. Assembly Bill 2198 vehicles: DUI Amends California Vehicle code sections Replaces the term "accident" with "crash" to describe collisions involving one or more person driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs Assembly Bill 2496 Vehicles: Exhaust Systems Requires court to notify DMV to place a registration hold on a vehicle found to have a noncompliant modified muffler installed with a whistle tip until court is presented with a certificate of compliance Restores the ability for LE to issue fix-it tickets for motorcycles. Assembly Bill 2537 Vehicles: Driver Education Requires DOJ, in conjunction with DMV & POST to develop and create a video demonstrating the proper conduct by a peace officer and an individual during a traffic stop. Require to be included in next scheduled revision of CDL application. Assembly Bill 2773 Stops: Notifications by peace officers effective January 1, 2024 Requires a peace officer making a traffic or pedestrian stop to state the reason for the stop before asking any questions related to a criminal investigation or traffic violation, unless the officer reasonably believes that withholding the reason for the stop is necessary to protect life or poerty from imminent threat. Senate Bill 1087 Vehicles: Catalytic Converters Requires a traceable method of payment for catalytic converters. Provides that the exemption for catalytic converters received pursuant to a written agreement is only valid if the written agreement also includes a regularly updated log or record describing each CC received under the agreement,a s specified. Prohibits core recycler from purchasing CC from anybody other than certain specified sellers. Senate Bill 1359 Vehicles: Registration Amends California vehicle code sections 5204 & 40225 Prohibits LE from citing a person/ vehicle for registration tab violations if the registration has been paid People v. Holiman (2022) RS for traffic enforcement stop A Vallejo PD Officer on FTO began following a vehicle due to a "hunch" related to a "furtive look" the driver gave the officer. Driver came to a full stop at a three-way intersection, signaled a right turn, and turned right. Based on this, Officer conducted a traffic stop and found contraband during her investigation. Defendant made a motion to suppress evidence due to the unlawful stop. Court held that the stop was unlawful- failure to signam is a traffic offense under 22107 or 22108 CVC if another vehicle could have been affected by the non-signaling vehicle's movement, which wasn't the case here Court re emphasize that the failure to signal for the last 100 feet before a limit line is not a distinct traffic offense- it must be linked to the requirement that another vehicle is affected by the insignaled movement. People v. Pantoja (2022) Pat search for weapons during traffic stop An officer conducted a lawful traffic stop for a broken tail light & broken license plate. Asked for consent to search the vehicle, def. declined. Due to def. wearing baggy clothing & have prior history of violence & weapons possession (known to the officer at the time), officer conducted a pat search of the driver. Pat search resulted in the officer locating a loaded handgun. Def. made a motion to suppress the firearm due to an unlawful search. Can an officer pat search a suspect for weapons during a traffic stop because he is wearing baggy clothing in the winter, the officer knows he had a history of arrests for weapons crimes (years old) and the area is known for high crime? Court held that the pat search was unlawful. According to the court, a pat search must be based on RS that the suspect is armed. Incorrect legal standard applied (California Peace Officers Association Attorneys) This ruling is based on decisions from lower federal courts, which differ from the Fourth Amendment Decision relies on RS for a detention, not facts needed to justify a pat search after the driver is lawfully detained. More cases out there that apply the correct legal standard under the Fourth Amendment! People v. Ayon (2022) Unlawfully prolonged traffic stop Was a traffic stop unlawfully prolonged where officers did not investigate the traffic infractions and did not write a ticket while they waited for a narcotics dog to alert to the presence of drugs? Police saw defendant commit two minor traffic violations- traffic enforcement stop Within first 4 minutes of stop officers gathered defendants ID, conducted records check, but did not do anything else to further investigate the violations or author a citation Officers then requested a narcotics K9 arrived approx. 13 mins after the traffic stop began & alerted to the presence of drugs 6 mins after arrival. Defendant moved to suppress drugs due to prolonged traffic enforcement stop/ unlawful S&S. Court held that the search violated the fourth amendment due to the traffic stop being unreasonably prolonged. Court added that officers did not diligently pursue an investigation into traffic violations during their tiem waiting for K9 & while k9 was working. Court mentioned that the BWC footage was crucial to their decision. Officer, in his report claimed that the defendant was hostible & Intoxicated. BWC completely undermined this notion made by the officer Blakes v. Superior Court (2022) PC to search vehicle/ marijuana + community caretaking 14601= tow authority 22650 CVC + California case law states you need the community caretaking act to apply in order to tow a vehicle People v. Johnson (2022) Miranda If a suspect invokes their right to silence or counsel, LE must discontinue questioning. In this case, dispite invocation, LE continued asking questions which led to defenant reinitiating conversation and "willingly" providing an incriminating statement. Court ruled that this violated defendant's Miranda rights A subsequent confession to a psychologist directed by LE led to a voluntary statement/ admission which was deemed admissible California Supreme Court repeatedly mentioned the usefulness & improtance of full audio recordings in cases suck as this. People v. Zabelle (2022) Interrogation Techniques Defendant was recorded on video surveillance footage committing a robbery in Sacramento Officers located him and gave him Miranda advisements Defendant initially denied his involvement Officer then told defendant "there is a very critical time where you can earn possibly some consideration" and " we can't make any guarantees but sometimes being honest and up front, admitting your involvment...can go a ways to showing your remorse" and "sometimes that works in your favor" this led to a confession from defendant Thoughts? Lawful/ unlawful? Defendants statement was determined to be voluntary and properly admitted. Officers statements were NOT implied promises of leniency but discussed the "truthful" effects of being honest. Could, or might vs. will "Fun" facts Automobile exception (carroll doctrine) doesn't apply in Pennsylvania absent of exigency California= most broad/ frequent probation terms/ enforcement of any state (per StreetCop training group) Courts beginning to factor in contacting people in the middle of the night (at their place of residence) with mirandizing more, citing the unreasonable hour of night... (per CPOA attorneys)