The URL can be used to link to this page

CASE LAW UPDATE DEC. 2024 PDFCASE LAW UPDATE DECEMBER 2024 SERGEANT JUSTIN WAX #505 ROHNERT PARK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY JWAX@RPCITY.ORG 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 Learn something new Study & discuss changed & rapidly evolving legislation Put what you’ve learned & what you know to practice AGENDA *Constitutional Law *Reasonable Suspicion & Probable Cause *Patrol Operations-related Case Law *Legal Update Tools & Resources *Recent & Relevant SB’s & AB’s *Legislative Changes *Sonoma County DA’s Office Update *Property Crimes *Search & Seizure *Community Caretaking Doctrine *Exigent Circumstances *Marijuana *Interview & Interrogation *Detentions *Fifth & Sixth Amendment *California Vehicle Code …..and more *Court of Appeals. *Of all Appellate Courts (13), 2nd highest % of vacated or reversed rulings by the SCOTUS (79%) - 2007-Present (6th Circuit - 81%) *October 2023-July 2024: 50% of decisions reversed by SCOTUS (10 total decisions). 100% reversal rate in this time = First, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Federal, State, US District Courts *Majority of Judges were appointed by Democrat Presidents (22 R / 30 D) - October 2024). *3 Judges per hearing, no jury. *Review cases to determine if law was “applied correctly”. NINTH CIRCUIT CASE LAW RESOURCES CASE LAW RESOURCES *SGT’S NOW HAVE PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS* 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 Constitutional Law, but 4th Amendment in CA is NOT more restrictive. *Federal Court of Appeals decisions are given “great weight”, but not binding like SCOTUS (Etcheverry v. Tri-Ag Service, 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. SONOMA COUNTY DA’S OFFICE UPDATE DDA MATT HUBLEY DDA ADAM MCBRIDE DDA JASON RIEHL DDA CHRIS BROWN CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION LEGAL UPDATE SENATE BILL & ASSEMBLY BILL UPDATES CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION LEGAL UPDATE SENATE BILL & ASSEMBLY BILL UPDATES Domestic Violence AB 2822 - Report Requirements regarding firearms (13730 PC) - Comparison on next slide SB 690 - DV Statute of Limitations (Amends 803.7 PC) -SOL on Domestic Violence (273.5(a) PC) extended from 5 years to 7 years SB 989 - DV Deaths -Plethora of amendments for Records/Coroner -For LE - Death determined not homicidal involving previous victim of DV, family & legal counsel has the right to request any and all records of the investigations currently available under CA Public Records Act AB 2907 - DV Report Requirements/Arresting Officer -Requires arresting officer for an offense involving an act of domestic violence to, amongst others, query AFS for firearms owned/possessed by the arrestee + ask arrestee/victim/other household members about firearms owned/possessed by the arrestee. AB 2822 CHANGE TO DV CHECKLIST MADE MISCELLANEOUS FIREARM(S) CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION LEGAL UPDATE SENATE BILL & ASSEMBLY BILL UPDATES SB 918 - Search Warrants (Eff. July 1, 2025) -Social Media Platforms w/ 1 million monthly users to: (1) Staff hotline to respond to LE, provide continuous updates of production (2) Generally requires them to respond to LE SW within 72 hours -Good cause for extension able to be granted by Court CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION LEGAL UPDATE SENATE BILL & ASSEMBLY BILL UPDATES Sex-Related Offenses SB 926 - Distribution of intimate images New Misdemeanor under - 647(j)(4)(A)(ii) AB 1831 - Child Pornography (AI-generated matter) AB 1874 - Disorderly Conduct: Full or partial undress AB 1962 - Disorderly Conduct: Revenge Pornography SB 1414 - Solicitation of a minor SB 268 - Serious & Violent Felonies (Rape/Intoxicated Victim) -Amends 667.5 PC -Makes rape of an intoxicated person a “violent” felony CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION LEGAL UPDATE SENATE BILL & ASSEMBLY BILL UPDATES Sex-Related Offenses SB 926 - Creation & distribution of intimate images - New Misdemeanor under 647(j)(4)(A)(ii) -18 or older -Creates & Distributes (or causes to be distributed) -Image of intimate body part(s) or sexual acts -Would reasonably cause emotional distress & depicted person suffers that distress CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION LEGAL UPDATE SENATE BILL & ASSEMBLY BILL UPDATES Sex-Related Offenses AB 1831 - Child Pornography (AI-generated matter) -Amends 311, 311.2, 311.11, 311.12 PC -Adds to definition of “obscene matter” - any “digitally altered or artificial-intelligence-generated matter” as it pertains to images of persons under the age of 18 engaged in sexual conduct, as specified. -Not necessary to prove that matter that depicts a real person under 18 years of age is obscene or lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in order to establish a violation of child pornography provisions. CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION LEGAL UPDATE SENATE BILL & ASSEMBLY BILL UPDATES Sex-Related Offenses - 647 PC AB 1874 - Disorderly Conduct: Full or partial undress -Increases the penalty for a second or subsequent offense of secretly recording/photographing a minor in full or partial undress without their consent in prescribed locations from a misdemeanor to a wobbler. This DOES NOT apply to a perpetrator who was under 18 at the time they committed the offense - felony charge for adults only AB 1962 - Disorderly Conduct: Revenge Pornography -Expands crime of revenge porn to include distribution of images recorded, captured, or otherwise obtained without authorization of the person depicted or by exceeding authorized access from property, accounts, messages, files, or resources of the person depicted. SB 1414 - Solicitation of a minor -Increases punishment from M to W for solicitation of a minor where person solicited was under 16 years of age at the time of the offense; and makes a second or subsequent offense a straight Felony CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION LEGAL UPDATE SENATE BILL & ASSEMBLY BILL UPDATES PROSTITUTION, SEX CRIMES, HUMAN TRAFFICKING AB 1954 - Sexually Violent Predators -Requires Chief of Police/Sheriff/DA/County Counsel to provide consultation & assistance in the Dept. of State Hospital’s process of locating housing for a conditionally released sexually violent predator (SVP). AB 2730 - SART -Requires certification to perform examination - technical changes for those working with assistants. AB 442 - Sexual Battery -Amends 243.4 PC -Adds “or any person who, for the purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse, causes another, against that person’s will, to masturbate or touch an intimate part of either of those persons or a third person” CALIFORNIA PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION LEGAL UPDATE SENATE BILL & ASSEMBLY BILL UPDATES - FIREARMSAB 2739 - Forfeiture -Any loaded firearm or unloaded handgun openly and unlawfully carried in public constitutes a public nuisance and must be surrendered to law enforcement (and subsequent destruction). AB 2907 - Restrained Persons (LEA MANDATES) -Requires that the arresting officer for an offense involving domestic violence do all of the following: *Query AFS through CLETS for any firearms owned or possessed by arrestee *Ask arrestee, victim, and any other household members, if applicable, about any firearms owned or possessed by the arrestee *Ensure any firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a lawful search is taken into temporary custody *Document in detail the actions taken to fulfill these obligations SB 902 - Public Safety/Prohibition - 10-year prohibition on the possession of firearms for individuals convicted of animal cruelty (29805 PC Amended) SB 53 - Firearm Storage (Effective January 1, 2026) -Person who possesses firearm in a residence is required to keep the firearm securely stored when firearm is not being carried or readily controlled. - “Securely stored” - maintained within, locked by, or disabled using a certified firearm safety device or a secure gun safe -Violation = Infraction or Misdemeanor CHANGE TO DV CHECKLIST MADE MISCELLANEOUS MUST ATTACH AFS INQUIRY FROM DISPATCH PROPOSITION 36 - DRUGS HSC 11395 - Treatment-Mandated Felony -Felony charge for possessing “hard drug” if offender has 2 prior drug-related convictions (M or F) - see 11369(d)(1) HSC for list. December 18, 2024 -Permits offenders to choose drug & mental health treatment instead of jail/prison PC 12022.7 - GBI enhancement/strike if GBI/Death is a result of someone using drugs that were sold, furnished, administered, or given by the offender. PC 12022(c) - Judge Discretion -Permits Judges to sentence drug dealers to state prison instead of county jail when convicted of trafficking hard drugs in large quantities (11370.4 HSC) HSC 11370 - Amended to include fentanyl to hard drug prohibited from possessing while armed with a loaded firearm HSC 11369 - Warning to Dealers of Hard Drugs -Courts can warn convicted hard drug dealer of murder charge if someone dies after they provide them with hard drug (these advisements are in place in our county) -Required for 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, 11379.5, 11379.6 11370.4 HSC - Controlled Substance Weight Enhancement RULES OF THE ROAD AB 1774 - Electric Bicycles - Definition & specifics to maintain lawfulness/compliance with E-Bike definition AB 1777 - Autonomous Vehicles (July 1, 2026) - Emergency response telephone line; non-compliance AB 1778 - Electric Bicycles (Marin County) - Pilot Program/unlawful for persons under 16 years old AB 1978 - Vehicles: Speed Contests - Can impound vehicle without making custodial arrest (22651 CVC) AB 2186 - Vehicle Impoundment - Includes Exhibition of Speed at off-street parking facility (23109.2 CVC) AB 2645 - Electronic Toll / Info Sharing with LE - CHP Alert System / Toll req’d to share vehicle info with LE AB 2807 - Sideshows/Street Takeovers - Clarifies that a “sideshow” is also known as a “street takeover” CASE LAW Detentions Probable Cause/Arrest Traffic Stops Vehicle Searches Warrantless Searches Scope of Search Warrant Biometrics Interrogations Transient (Martin v. Boise & Grants Pass) - https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-175 DETENTIONS People v. Flores (2024) In Re: TF-G (2023) People v. Paul (2024) People v. Jackson (2024) DETENTIONS In Re: TG-F (2023) Did a subject’s flight after being asked by an officer to “just come over here” provide probable cause that the subject had violated 148 PC so as to justify an arrest & search incident to that arrest? *TFG was amongst a group of young people hanging out in and around a vehicle while smoking marijuana. Officers began having members of the group step out of the vehicle, pat downs, and having them sit on a curb. *When they asked TFG to come over he questioned why. While officer was responding to him, TFG took off running. Officer caught him & search incident to arrest = unregistered handgun. *TFG argued it was a consensual encounter. Court disagreed & said a reasonable person would have believed they were not free to leave after officers stopped to speak to the group, asked about marijuana use, began patting down, and securing members of the group + asking TFG to come over to them. *Court ruled TFG was detained and his flight provided probable cause to arrest him for 148(a)(1) PC. HELD: Violation of 148(a)(1) PC - search incident to arrest was valid DETENTIONS People v. Paul (2024) When two officers approach opposite sides of a vehicle and shine their flashlights into it at close range, is the driver detained? *Two officers pulled up next to a car parked w/ lights on in a residential neighborhood. One officer knew that a parolee lived across the street. *Officer on passenger side shined flashlight into the vehicle & saw Paul, who sunk lower into his seat. *Officers backed patrol car up & parked in middle of the street with lights on, exited vehicle, approached vehicle on either side.*Paul contacted, stated he was on parole, parole status confirmed, parole search yielded a firearm. *Officers in this case created a detention b/c they:A.Positioned themselves close to the car & on opposite sides preventing defendant from driving/walking awayB.Shined flashlights at close range illuminating defendant on all sidesC.Approached defendant while he was on the phone & legally parked so he could not decline interaction w/out suspending or ending his phone call HELD: Detention not supported by suspicion = unlawfulRULE: Multiple officers approaching a vehicle from opposite sides and shining flashlights at the car windows at close range will likely affect a detention. ****Court Notes + CPOA Notes**** DETENTIONS People v. Jackson(2024) When two officers approach opposite sides of a vehicle and shine their flashlights into it at close range, is the driver detained? *Two officers pulled up next to Jackson’s car after seeing him alone in the car after midnight. Jackson was wearing a bulky jacket on a hot night & was seated awkwardly in the driver seat. *Patrol car was close enough to the car that Jackson would have to squeeze to get out. *Officers approached either side shining flashlights on Jackson. Jackson appeared uncomfortable, surprised, nervous. *After about 10 seconds, officer observed firearm in the car resulting in the arrest of Jackson *Officers in this case created a detention b/c they: A.Placed Patrol car within a few feet of defendant’s driver side door B.Surrounded his car in the dark C.Aimed two flashlights at him in close range *Court found justifications for detention inadequate (bulky jacket on hot night, surprised to see officers, seated awkwardly). Court also rejected officers testimony that the area was known for criminal activity. HELD: Detention not supported by suspicion = unlawful RULE: Multiple officers approaching a vehicle from opposite sides and shining flashlights at the car windows at close range will likely affect a detention. *****CPOA Notes**** Slide from California DOJ Attorney 2024 Case Law Update *Articulation in reports and/or Officer Safety make a difference in this scenario ARREST/PROBABLE CAUSE People v. Diaz (2023) Does PC to arrest exist when the police observed a person with a distinctive tattoo matching a murder suspect in a place connected to the murder, not long after the murder? *A man with a distinct neck tattoo shot and killed a street vendor over apparent displeasure at the location of the vendor’s operation. The shooter was linked to a company that ran taco stands in the area *Police began surveillance of the company’s warehouse and observed a man with a matching distinctive tattoo arrive and speak with workers there. Police arrested him and a witness later ID’d him as the shooter. HELD: PC to arrest existed when police observed a person with the “highly distinctive” appearance of the perpetrator appearing in a location connected to the murder (“the right place”) close in time to the murder (“the right time”). Because of how distinctive the tattoo was, some minor discrepancies between witness descriptions of the tattoo and the suspect’s tattoo were less significant than they would’ve been regarding a less distinctive feature. TRAFFIC STOPS People v. Ramirez (2024) - Traffic Stop/Removing Driver People v. Felix (Utah; 2024) -Prolonging the Stop -See interrogation section for more… United States v. Taylor (9th Cir. 2024) - Prolonging the Stop & Consent to Search People v. Esparza (2023) - Pat Search during T-Stop; Extended Detention United States v. Ramirez (2024) - Parole Status Inquiry TRAFFIC STOPS - REMOVING DRIVER FROM VEHICLE People v. Ramirez (2024) May an Officer who has lawfully detained a motorist order the motorist out of their vehicle without a particular safety concern or justification? *Lawful traffic stop for a CVC violation. Officer took DL and ran records check at Patrol vehicle. Returning to vehicle, officer found driver to be on the phone. *Officer ordered driver to put phone down and step out of the vehicle. After a brief argument, driver complied. *While driver was out of the vehicle, another officer observed a firearm (plain view) *Motion to suppress claiming he was inappropriately removed from the car & the stop was inappropriately prolonged. Trial court granted the motion + no facts supporting a change in officer safety related circumstances between start of stop and when driver was ordered out. **CPOA NOTES: -Law has long permitted police to order the driver of a lawfully stopped vehicle to exit the vehicle without any articulable or particular justification. The trial court was wrong to require there be a change in circumstances or articulated officer safety concern. With other tasks needing to be completed during the stop, ordering the driver out of the vehicle did not impermissibly extend the stop. TRAFFIC STOPS - PROLONGING THE STOP People v. Felix ( Utah 2024) Was a traffic stop unreasonably prolonged beyond its valid purposes when an officer received additional information from a dispatcher & asked additional questions of the driver based on that information? *Lawful traffic stop for a CVC violation. Records check + dialogue with Dispatch about a driver’s foreign documentation & R/O who was NOT the driver. *This led to questions asked of the driver about his trip in light of justified suspicions. This information was later confirmed by a Spanish-speaking officer who arrived on scene to assist. *Driver eventually consented to a search of the vehicle which led to the seizure of drugs and a gun. This particular suspect was also implicated in a murder and eventually made incriminating statements to an undercover officer posing as a fellow detainee in jail related to the murder (driver previously invoked Miranda rights). HELD: The traffic stop was NOT unreasonably prolonged. First 6 minutes = ordinary T-stop inquiries. R/O inquiry was appropriate and it was appropriate to inquire about illegal transportation during Records Check. Also reasonable to spend several minutes confirming info already given w/ help of Spanish-speaking officer. RULE: Questioning during a routine traffic stop is not itself a Fourth Amendment violation if the subject is related to the purpose of the stop and/or questioning does not unreasonably prolong the stop. SEE 5TH AMENDMENT INTERROGATION ISSUE RELATED TO THIS CASE TRAFFIC STOPS - PROLONGING THE STOP; CONSENT SEARCH/VEHICLE United States v. Taylor (9th Cir. 2023) Under what circumstances is a traffic stop unlawfully prolonged, and what constitutes voluntary consent to a vehicle search? *Lawful traffic stop for a CVC violation. During routine stop/questions, Officers learned that the driver was on parole for being a felon in possession of a firearm. About 90 seconds into the stop, officers asked driver to step out of the vehicle. *Parolee was wearing a fanny pack. One officer conducted pat search while other ran Criminal HX check. *While waiting for Criminal HX, one officer asked if it was “cool if we check” the car for guns, and the driver said “it don’t matter, I just got it, I just got [the car], it don’t matter to me”. *A handgun was located in the front seat. HELD: The traffic stop was NOT unreasonably prolonged - officers inquiries about weapons, records checks, pat down, etc. were appropriately related to the traffic violation and safety concerns. Reasonable cause for pat search existed because the car had no plates, no ID, driver admitted to being a firearm offender, and was wearing a fanny pack where a weapon could be reasonably hidden. Drover’s consent was voluntary because there were no threats, coercion, show of force, and interaction was calm/friendly. Driver’s response to request to search was unequivocal and specific. TRAFFIC STOPS - PAT SEARCH DURING STOP; EXTENDED DETENTION United States v. Esparza (2023) When an officer patrolling in contested gang territory lawfully stops a car occupied by gang members including one who was known to always carry a weapon, is an investigatory detention and pat search for weapons justified? *Lawful traffic stop for a CVC violation. Driving in territory contested by violent gangs. Car had 4 occupants. Driver produced license and a passenger disclosed that he had been arrested in Nevada. Gang detective arrived and ID’d driver and another occupant as gang members. Passenger gang member was “always strapped”, according to LE. *Pat search of occupant ID’d as “always strapped” = loaded ghost gun in waistband. Other occupants pat searched which led to seizure of another firearm. The two armed were arrested. *This all happened within about 7 minutes. HELD: Detentions & pat searches were lawful under the totality of the circumstances. -Car was in an area claimed by violent gangs + experienced gang detective ID’d two occupants as gang members. -Once one firearm was found, it was reasonable to infer that the driver could also be armed and dangerous. -Stop was initiated lawfully and remained lawful throughout = not unreasonably extended -Officers coordinated with each other & took actions consistent with legitimate safety concerns. -No delay and expeditious evolvement of incident were also considered. RULE: Investigatory detention & pat search for weapons is permissible under the Fourth Amendment when an officer has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed & presently dangerous. TRAFFIC STOPS - ASKING ABOUT PAROLE STATUS DURING STOP United States v. Ramirez (9th Cir. 2024) Did an officer’s inquiries about a driver’s probation or parole status violate the Fourth Amendment? *Lawful traffic stop for multiple CVC violations. Officers recognized the driver as a gang member. *On initial contact with the driver, one officer said “What’s up my man? You on probation or parole?” - Driver answered “Parole.” Officer asked “for what?” and driver said “For a firearm.” *Several more Q’s followed & driver admitted he had a gun in the glove compartment. Driver arrested but claimed at trial that the stop was unreasonably prolonged by officers “fishing for hypothetical criminal activity” rather than addressing the business of the traffic stop. HELD: Asking about the driver’s parole status at a traffic stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was a negligibly burdensome measure that reasonably related to officer safety. -Court found that question to be substantially similar to permissibly running a criminal HX check -Once driver revealed parole status, additional safety precautions were justified. VEHICLE SEARCHES People v. Banks (2024) - Vehicle Inventory Search Boitez v. Superior Court (2023) - Consent Search of Vehicle VEHICLE SEARCHES - VEHICLE INVENTORY SEARCHES People v. Banks (2023) Was a decision to impound & inventory search a vehicle supported by community caretaking? *Lawful traffic stop. Driver admitted he did not have a valid DL. The Officer suspected 10851 because it was an older vehicle with paper plates & no temporary registration sticker + driver could not prove ownership *Drive had a suspended DL and a misdemeanor traffic warrant for his arrest. Minor female in the vehicle as well whom the officer suspected was a sex trafficking victim *Search of vehicle = evidence supporting HT suspicion. Officer arrested driver, took custody of the minor, towed/impounded vehicle. PD had department policy to conduct inventory searches of impounded vehicles (Policy 503.4) RULE: When departmental policy requires inventory searches of vehicles to be towed & impounded, deciding whether to tow & impound is a matter of officer discretion. That discretion, however, must be exercised according to standard criteria related to community caretaking and on the basis of something other than suspicion of evidence of criminal activity. HELD: The court did not think the officer impounded the vehicle for an investigatory purpose here. Under these facts, even if he did, it was valid & inevitable as it served community caretaking and was within policy. This was a reasonable exercise in discretion & based besides suspicion of evidence of criminal activity being located inside. *We’ve talked in recent years about Community Caretaking A LOT - see me if you want to discuss further. VEHICLE SEARCHES - CONSENT Boitez v. Superior Court (2023) Did an officer’s false promise of leniency about towing a car render the driver’s consent to search involuntary? Does it matter whether the false promise was caused by an honest mistake? *Lawful traffic stop (minor traffic infraction). Driver had a suspended DL, but there was a licensed driver (driver’s sister) near the scene who could take the car. Officers had a hunch that the people in the car were gang members. *One officer told the driver they could have the car towed, but indicated that they would give the driver a break and not do so if the driver would consent to a search. After demonstrating some reluctance, the driver consented to the search. Officers located unlawfully possessed firearms & ammunition in the vehicle. HELD: Because there was a licensed driver nearby, the car was legally parked, and there was not a community caretaking function for the tow, the officer would not actually have been legally permitted to tow the vehicle in this particular case. Officer mistakenly believed he could. The test for Fourth Amendment violations is typically objective & officers are presumed to know the laws relating to the performance of their duties. Therefore, the officer’s subjective belief was irrelevant. Because the car could not have been towed, the offer to tow it constituted a false promise of leniency. Based on the totality of the circumstances, consent was determined to be coerced & involuntary. The fruits of the search were suppressed. RULES: An officer making a false promise of leniency is an important and relevant factor in determining whether consent to search was voluntary. The officer’s subjective motivations or beliefs are irrelevant. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES People v. Alvarez (2023) - Exigent Circumstances & Warrantless Blood Draws (obvious ruling) United States v. Parkins (9th Cir. 2024) - Cohabitant/Consent to Search (obvious ruling) People v. Pritchett (2024) - Good Faith & Law Changes (USE CAUTION) WARRANTLESS SEARCHES - EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES/BLOOD DRAW People v. Alvarez (2023) Is a warrantless blood draw permissible under the exigent circumstances rule where a person’s unconsciousness occurs in the hospital about 90min after a car accident? *At approx. 11:30pm, officers arrived at scene of a fatal TC. One officer spoke to defendant driver, who seemed uninjured and admitted to driving the overturned vehicle. *Driver was taken to hospital following HGN. At approx. 1am, same officer administered preliminary alcohol screening test. Five minutes later, the officer informed the driver that he wanted to get a blood sample from the driver. Driver stopped responding and laid with his eyes closed. Phlebotomist arrived took defendant’s blood at approx. 1:57am. Defendant did not react to the needle being stuck in his arm. Blood test revealed .05 BAC with presence of cocaine & THC. HELD: There was no emergency situation permitting warrantless blood draw where the defendant was responsive at the scene and for about 45min in the hospital. Testimony regarding the timeliness of obtaining a warrant was determined to not support the argument of diversion from the investigation. Court also rejected that the officer acted in good faith as the implied consent law did not apply. No arrest had been made yet nor the decision to arrest. Unlawful warrantless search under the Fourth Amendment. *Similar recent case involving driver being airlifted from hospital. In that case, exigent blood draw upheld. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES - CO-INHABITANT CONSENT TO SEARCH United States v. Parkins (9th Cir. 2024) Was consent to search an apartment valid when one co-inhabitant gave consent, but another co-inhabitant some distance away but in the apartment complex & within earshot objected? *Parkins pointed a laser at a police aircraft from his apartment complex. While investigating, officers encountered Parkins & his girlfriend at their apartment. Parkins was escorted to a nearby bench and then to the complex mailbox for a discussion. Parkins denied owning a laser pointer. *Another officer asked Parkins’ girlfriend for consent to search the apartment. From the mailboxes, Parkins shouted “don’t let the cops in, and don’t talk to them.”. However, his girlfriend consented to a search. Officers found a laser pointer in the apartment. *Parkins was arrested. At jail, he waived his Miranda rights and admitted to owning the laser pointer. Police never told him they found a laser pointer in his home. HELD: (1)Consent to search by one co-inhabitant/co-tenant is not sufficient when another co-inhabitant is “physically present” & “expressly objects” to the search(2)Here, Parkins was sufficiently “physically present” & his objection was clear & it did not matter that it was directed at his girlfriend.(3)Evidence from the search was suppressed, but because officers never told Parkins they had found the pointer, his statements during the interview were NOT fruit of the poisonous tree and were NOT suppressed. RULE: Officers cannot rely on one co-inhabitants consent to search when another co-inhabitant is physically present and “expressly objects” to the search. Physical presence does not require the objector to be right at the home’s doorway, and the express objection need not be directed to the police. WARRANTLESS SEARCHES - GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION & RECENT LAW CHANGES People v. Pritchett (2024) Does an officer’s ignorance of recent law changes affecting the length of probationary terms, render his warrantless search of a hotel room unlawful and evidence suppressible? *A Detective conducted a search of defendant’s hotel room pursuant to probation terms. Detective obtained probation terms from a database which had information “straight from the courts” - like Crimnet for us. That database showed that Pritchett was on active probation with a condition that she submit to warrantless searches of residence. Upon a search of the hotel room, fentanyl was located. *9 months prior to this arrest, AB 1950 passed reducing all grants of misdemeanor probation to one year. This applied retroactively. The Detective was unaware of this law change. Despite the law change, the database still showed Pritchett on active probation. *Pritchett argued that her probation had expired so the search was unlawful. HELD: A.The good faith exception applies. Court could not conclude that the Detective would or should have known that the info in the database was incorrect or reliance on it was unreasonable. Detective could not recall an instance in which the information was not accurate. Based on this, Court found the Detective was acting in an objectively reasonable manner.B.Police officers are not expected to be legal experts - “what would be reasonable for a well-trained officer is not necessarily the same as what would be reasonable for a jurist”. Court cited minimal case law surrounding AB 1950 cases (little law to interpret the changes from this AB)C.Additionally, the defendant had not taken any affirmative action to terminate own probation status. *Other case law (People v. Rossetti; 2014 + People v. Harris; 2015) only authorized good faith exceptions up to the day that the new and contrary Fourth Amendment case law was published. SCOPE OF WARRANT People v. Helzer (2024) - General Warrants People v. DiMaggio (2024) - Digital Search Warrants People v. Ramirez (2023) - Biometrics People v. Campos (2024) - CALECPA Notifications (CPOA Advisement) SCOPE OF WARRANT - GENERAL WARRANTS People v. Helzer (2024) Did officers exceed the scope of warrants, seizing property not expressly stated in the warrants, such that blanket suppression of evidence was required? Did the relatively broad warrants - obtained during a complex investigation - quality as prohibited general warrants? *Money-making scheme culminated into a series of murders. Helzer was convicted of multiple murders. Part of the evidence presented against him was obtained via search warrant for his residence. *First warrant was obtained pursuant to info from last two murders - looking for a firearm. Once inside, they noticed blood on the carpet. They stopped the search & obtained a second warrant. Prior to resuming, briefing with all involved LEA’s to review scope of first/second warrant. Continued search resulted in more evidence outside of scope so they got a third warrant. *Search lasted 8 days. Defense argued some items seized were outside the scope of the warrants. De facto prohibited “general warrants” = motion to suppress all evidence due to lack of lawfulness of warrants. HELD: General warrants are prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. However, some warrants may be more generalized while piecing together many pieces of circumstantial evidence as opposed to more direct evidence. Search was not a “general, exploratory rummaging” Plain view doctrine allows for officers to collect evidence that is immediately apparent to be evidence of a crime when they are lawfully executing a search warrant (in our county, just get an addendum). RULE: (1) Officers are allowed to collect items that are not expressly stated in the warrant when (a) they do not act in bad faith & (b) the objects are in plain view & their incriminatory nature is immediately apparent *MOST CASES WILL ALLOW FOR AN ADDENDUM* SCOPE OF WARRANT - TIMEFRAME People v. DiMaggio (2024) Did the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule apply when LE received a SW to review cell phone data generated during a specific period of time, but the LE forensic report generated also included material with no date/time metadata associated with it? *DiMaggio accused of sexaul assault. SW obtained to review cell phone data from 4/8/2022 at 0001 hrs to 5/9/2022 at 2359 hrs. *Cellebrite software used + box checked to include all material that did not have a metadata timestamp in the report. He later testified that Cellebrite trained him that way, in essence. However, he had also been trained by his agency to respect the scope of search warrants. Undated material included 311.11 PC. *In the search warrant affidavit, the affiant explained why it might be necessary to search material with no timestamp metadata & requested that authority. However, nothing in the search warrant itself authorized or discussed the search of material without timestamps. *Court said it was confined to review “the four corners of the warrant”. HELD: Law Enforcement went beyond the scope of the SW by including undated material. Good faith exception to the exclusionary rule did not apply. SEARCH WARRANT - DIGITAL FINGERPRINT LOCK People v. Ramirez (2023) Did an officer forcing appellant’s finger onto a cell phone screen to unlock a fingerprint lock, after receiving a search warrant to search the phone, violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search & seizure? *Underage Jane Doe reported that Ramirez molested her & recorded abuse on his cell phone. LE requested a series of warrants to seize & search electronics. Affidavit included language requesting authorization to use Ramirez’ fingerprint to unlock the phone, that authorization did not appear on the face of the warrant. However, language incorporated the affidavit. *SW executed by placing appellant’s fingers on the device until it unlocked. They found CSAM. Appellant claimed use of his fingerprints to unlock device constituted a violation of his Fourth & Fifth Amendment rights. HELD: Language authorized reasonable force to unlock the phone with fingerprints. Even if the warrant had not incorporated affidavit, the good faith exception would apply because the executing officers acted in reasonable good faith of the validity of the issued warrants. In essence: -Incorporate what you are asking for in body of warrant into your actual warrant See Fifth Amendment violations claims later… SEARCH WARRANT - CALECPA & PROPER NOTICE People v. Campos (2024) Should electronic info/digital evidence be suppressed where a defendant is not property notified of its acquisition by the government pursuant to CALECPA? *Four warrants during a murder investigation which targeted Facebook account info & cell phone records. 90-day extension obtained. Defendant was arrested prior to 90 days & was NOT notified of acquisition of electronic information within the 90-day period. HELD: (1)Notice was insufficient under CALECPA (2)Suppression of evidence was NOT required, as CALECPA’s purpose of post-disclosure notice was ultimately fulfilled when law enforcements efforts to seek electronic info were made available to defendant through discovering & unsealing of warrants. PRACTICE NOTE FROM CPOA (THE ATTORNEYS THAT REPRESENT YOU): -This case still left the door open for suppression of evidence under other circumstances. -In these cases, ensure defendant receives notice during the relevant notice period as described by legislation under CALECPA INTERROGATION People v. Villegas - Fifth Amendment / Invocation People v. Felix (Utah, 2024) - Coercion; UC interview in custody People v. Wilson - Reinitiating Questioning MIRANDA - RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT People v. Villegas (2023) After defendant waives Miranda, does the statement “I won’t say anything else” made in the course of an interview amount to an unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent? *Defendant molested three young children. Initially, only two were ID’d. Detectives interviewed suspect about those two. Suspect waived Miranda and admitted to molesting them. *Post-arrest, 3rd victim came forward (biological daughter). Defendant waived Miranda again but was reluctant to confess. Ultimately he said “well that was just one mistake, I won’t say anything else. It was a mistake and - whatever she says, I won’t say more things anymore”. He continued, “I will tell you that it was a mistake and that’s it”, and “that’s the only thing I’ll say”. Detectives continued interviewing suspect and he eventually said that she was “telling the truth”. HELD: Defendant’s statements were neither unambiguous nor unequivocal invocations of his right to remain silent. A reasonable officer in this situation would conclude that his comments reflected frustration because he did not want to admit to things his bio-daughter disclosed. RULE: Right to remain silent must be articulated in a clear & unambiguous way such that a reasonable officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be an invocation of that right. EXAMPLES: -People v. Martinez (2010) - “that’s all I can tell you” -In re Joe (1980) - “that’s all I have got to say”Wax example MIRANDA - UC in Jail / Non-Mirandized Statements People v. Felix (Utah 2024) Are non-Mirandized statements admissible when they are elicited by a UC officer posing as a fellow jail detainee, despite previously invoking right to counsel? *Felix from Utah (previously-discussed case) was later in jail. While in jail, he made incriminating statements to a UC officer posing as a fellow detainee. Suspect previously invoked Miranda rights. *Suspect’s jail cell conversations was not a coercive interrogation. Incriminating statements to cellmate were made freely. PRACTICE NOTE: If the Sixth Amendment right to counsel has already attached, then the statement will be inadmissible despite the lack of Miranda violation SEARCH WARRANT - DIGITAL FINGERPRINT LOCK People v. Ramirez (2023) Did an officer forcing appellant’s finger onto a cell phone screen to unlock a fingerprint lock, after receiving a search warrant to search the phone, violate the Fifth Amendment prohibition on self-incrimination? *Underage Jane Doe reported that Ramirez molested her & recorded abuse on his cell phone. LE requested a series of warrants to seize & search electronics. Affidavit included language requesting authorization to use Ramirez’ fingerprint to unlock the phone, that authorization did not appear on the face of the warrant. However, language incorporated the affidavit. *SW executed by placing appellant’s fingers on the device until it unlocked. They found CSAM. Appellant claimed use of his fingerprints to unlock device constituted a violation of his Fourth & Fifth Amendment rights. HELD: The use of biometrics does not involve testimonial communication. Court ruled that this was the functional equivalent of taking blood or DNA samples. LEGALUPDATES.COM Stalking Update High Risk Veh Stops - 9th Cir. Liability Inventory & Impound Searches Kidnapping & Substantial Distance Ray Hill’s Legal Update (October 2024) Deadly Force on Unarmed (San Jose 2024) Death Penalty Case Rules on numerous legal issues STALKING People v. Obermueller (2024) Stalking defined + Indirect Threats Through Intermediaries 646.9(a) PC) *Victim & Defendant had brief acquaintance in high school which ended when victim rejected defendant’s advances. After 30 years, defendant’s stalking behavior began. *Manhattan PD investigation led to defendant being convicted of felony stalking for sending sexually charged & threatening emails to victim including disturbing content about his obsession + website covering why she should be his wife & traveling 400+ miles to confront her *Protective Order issued after conviction. This didn’t stop defendant from sending influx of emails/texts to defendant’s family. Subsequent conviction for stalking. He appealed this saying that because he never directly contact victim, his conviction should be 664/stalking. *Second District Court of CA ruled that his actions constituted purposeful harassment, creating credible threats instilling fear in both victim & victim’s family. Court ruled that the stalking statute does not require direct contact; crime was complete through the indirect communication. USDOJ: ●46% of stalking victims fear not knowing what will happen next. ●29% fear harassment will never end. ●1 in 8 employed victims lose time from work, with over 50% of those missing 5+ days. ●1 in 7 victims relocate due to victimization. KIDNAPPING & “SUBSTANTIAL DISTANCE” People v. Hall (2024) Short Movements During Robbery Not Enough for Kidnapping Conviction *Defendant + 2 other Crips gang members committed a home invasion robbery in San Bernardino County. Force victim at gunpoint upstairs to open a safe. Victim was tied to a chair & pistol-whipped. *Suspects stole jewelry, firearms, cash, cannabis plant, and cannabis seeds. *Defendant convicted/sentenced to 15-life. On appeal, argued that victim was not moved a “substantial distance” for purposes of simple kidnapping (207 PC). *4th District Court of CA ruled that the forced movement of victim was an insufficient distance for the “asportation element” of kidnapping. Movement was “relatively short” and done for purpose of committing robbery. *Kidnapping is defined as “carrying someone away into another part of the county” - any “asportation element” involved was done for purposes of committing robbery. Slight or trivial movement w/in a building to facilitate commission of another crime doesn’t involve “substantial distance”. *Kidnapping conviction overturned. Defendant still doing 15-life because the Judge kept the kidnapping sentence but the conviction being overturned takes it off his criminal record. *This rule applies to both aggravated & simple kidnapping. HIGH-RISK VEHICLE STOPS Chinaryan v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2024) New Potential Liability Risks for Police *Chinaryan drovomg home w/ teenage daughter & friend in vehicle when they became target of high-risk vehicle stop by 12 LAPD Officers + Air Unit. Officers acting on info that a black Chev Suburban limo had been stolen 3 days prior. *Stolen vehicle was equipped w/ a “LoJack device” (not as accurate as GPS as determined in court) - Chinaryan located approx. ½ mile from where the stolen limo’s LoJack signal was detected the day before. *Chinaryan’s limo was a 2018 & stolen limo was a 2015, but they looked very similar. *Sgt that located Chinaryan’s limo ran license plate which came back to a Dodge Ram & not registered to Chinaryan. Sgt. suspected vehicle was coldplated. *High-risk stop initiated. Occupants removed at gunpoint, including Chinaryan’s daughter who urinated herself due to being so scared of the AR-15 & shotgun pointed at her. *VIN check/FI revealed DMV issued wrong plate to Chinaryan (1 digit off from actual plate). Vehicle was registered to Chinaryan’s husband. *Stop/detainment lasted ~ 24min. HIGH-RISK VEHICLE STOPS Chinaryan v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2024) New Potential Liability Risks for Police *Chinaryan sued LAPD & City of LA in Federal Court (illegal seizure & excessive force). Federal District (Trial) Court ruled in favor of civil defendants (LAPD & City of LA). *The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed in a 2-to-1 decision. RULE: Having cause to believe a vehicle is stolen or cold-plated is insufficient by itself to justify subjecting the vehicle’s occupants to a high-risk felony stop absent an articulable reason to believe the occupants are armed or otherwise dangerous. Officers are subject to potential civil liability for conducting a high-risk stop based upon nothing more than reasonable suspicion (or PC) that the vehicle was stolen, absent a reason to believe occupant(s) are armed and/or dangerous. *Lengthy author notes from Retired Deputy District Attorney Robert Phillips of Legalupdates.com on this: -Auto theft suspects being inherently dangerous (“inherently dangerous felony”) -Case does not specifically state that high-risk stops of an auto theft suspect is always going to be a Fourth Amendment violation. -“Articulable reason(s)” for why officer(s) believe occupants of the vehicle are (or at least, might be) armed or otherwise dangerous DEADLY FORCE ON NON-THREATENING ARMED PERSON Calonge v. City of San Jose (9th Cir. 2024) Use of Deadly Force, Qualified Immunity, & the Fourth Amendment *911 call to SJPD regarding a man who appeared to be carrying a firearm walking in San Jose. Particular concern with a high school three blocks away and students were about to be released for the day. *SJPD on scene and observed Calonge walking away from the high school but towards the officers. Calonge had what appeared to be a handgun (later determined to be a BB gun) in his front waistband and was resting his right hand on it. *Officer got out of his car with his rifle & yelled “let me see your hands” and “drop it”. Others also shouted “drop the gun” + “do not reach for it” + “get on the ground”. Calonge ignored them, crossed the street, and began walking in the general direction of the high school. Looked over his shoulder a few times at officers and “smiled”. *Officer with the rifle told other officers “Hey, watch out, I’m gonna shoot him. Watch out, get out of the way.” Shot him once in the back - bullet struck his heart & killed him. ****No warning given to Calonge. ****Just over 1 minute elapsed between when the officer exited his police car with the rifle & when he shot Calogne. *Civil lawsuit filed for a Fourth Amendment Rights violation on behalf of Calonge. District (Trial) Court ruled in favor of SJ/SJPD, holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. DEADLY FORCE ON NON-THREATENING ARMED PERSON Calonge v. City of San Jose (9th Cir. 2024) Use of Deadly Force, Qualified Immunity, & the Fourth Amendment *The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. *Officer that shot Calonge testified that he shot Calonge for two reasons: -He saw Calonge’s arm “bow out”, etc. suggesting that he was drawing the gun; -Calonge was walking toward some students that were 10-15 yards ahead of him and he feared Calonge would take them hostage. *Other officers testified & their testimony contradicted the two points made by the officer that shot Calonge *Evidence (including BWC from officers at scene) showed that there were not any bystanders nearby. *Through evidence & testimony, the court determined that Calonge was not drawing the gun nor were there bystanders near by *Court had issue with not giving a warning in this case & cited cases related to this topic. *Due to these laws being well-established. Ninth Circuit ruled that the civil defendants were NOT entitled to qualified immunity. *835a PC did not become effective until two months after this shooting, so the “new” 835a was not referenced* Death Penalty Case Rules on Numerous Legal Issues People v. Wilson (2024) Photo Lineups, In-Court ID, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, etc. *Early 2000 - Javance Wilson would kill cab drivers & steal their money in Southern California (San Bernardino County). On one instance, he forced a cab driver out of the car, told him to get onto his knees, put a gun in the cab driver’s mouth, pulled the trigger, gun jammed, victim fled and was able to call police. *Wilson outstanding for ~1 month and did this again in the same location but murdered this particular cab driver. He used 10-55 cab driver’s phone to call another cab. The new cab driver came & picked Wilson up. Within 2 hours, Wilson robbed & killed that cab driver. *As these incidents unfolded, the first referenced incident was under investigation. Photo lineup showed to initial victim WITHOUT Wilson in it, and that victim could not ID anyone. Eventually, they ID’d Wilson through circumstantial evidence & a relatively fitting description provided by the living victim matching the description of Wilson. *Photo lineup of Wilson = positive ID. Wilson 10-15 in Ohio. Live lineup = positive ID of Wilson *First jury could not reach a verdict. Second jury found Wilson guilty of all charges & he was sentenced to death. *Appeal to CA Supreme Court = Affirmed in 5-2 decision. Death Penalty Case Rules on Numerous Legal Issues People v. Wilson (2024) Photo Lineups, In-Court ID, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, etc. ISSUES ON APPEAL: (1)Admissibility of Victim’s ID’s of Wilson in photo lineup (2)Admissibility of Victim’s ID’s of Wilson at preliminary hearing (3)Miranda invocations & incriminating statements made to Investigators by Wilson (4)Wilson’s Sixth Amendment right to testify & if it was violated by his own attorney who refused to let Wilson testify Death Penalty Case Rules on Numerous Legal Issues People v. Wilson (2024) Photo Lineups, In-Court ID, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, etc. ISSUES ON APPEAL - Admissibility of Victim’s ID’s of Wilson in photo lineup *The use of the photo lineup was not “blind” (BLIND = Administer of photo lineup does not know who the suspect is) *Showing photos all at once versus sequentially can lead to ID based on who looked most like the perpetrator rather than comparing each individual photograph to own memory *Court ruled that the identification processes used were upheld by previous case law & Victim’s ID here was reliable. Previous case law shows that the procedures used in this case are sufficiently liable Death Penalty Case Rules on Numerous Legal Issues People v. Wilson (2024) Photo Lineups, In-Court ID, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, etc. ISSUES ON APPEAL - Admissibility of Victim’s ID’s of Wilson at preliminary hearing *Wilson being the only person in court wearing jail clothing & sitting at the defense table was prejudicial *Sufficient evidence in Victim’s testimony to show that ID of Wilson was truly based on witness & independent recollection Death Penalty Case Rules on Numerous Legal Issues People v. Wilson (2024) Photo Lineups, In-Court ID, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, etc. ISSUES ON APPEAL - Alleged Miranda Violations *Wilson initially waived his rights when arrested in Ohio but soon after invoked his right to remain silent. This invocation was admittedly ignored, so the prosecution agreed to not allow anything said after this point while in Ohio. *While ER to San Bernardino, Wilson told a Detective that he “might want to talk about the case”. Wilson was told to wait until they arrived in CA. Advisement given & questioning resumed in SBC. During this interrogation, he eventually invoked again but provided indications he still wanted to talk about the case. During this back-and-forth, he made incriminating admissions. *Trial Court noted both the defendant’s and LE’s “CHESS GAME” in determining how much the other side knew. Eventually, Wilson’s statements in CA were admissible based on Wilson freely reinitiating communication. Death Penalty Case Rules on Numerous Legal Issues People v. Wilson (2024) Photo Lineups, In-Court ID, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, etc. ISSUES ON APPEAL - Sixth Amendment *Wilson argued that his attorney prevented him from testifying in court. *Testimony from attorney contradicted Wilson’s appeal. *Court considered timing of when Wilson allegedly asked to testify & ultimately denied Wilson’s appeal. GRANTS PASS City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024) Does a city’s enforcement of public camping against involuntarily homeless people violate the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel & unusual punishment? *Grants Pass muni code includes: -Anti-sleeping ordinance -Anti-camping ordinances -Park-exclusion ordinance *Martin v. Boise in 2018 (9th Cir.) held that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for sitting, sleeping, or lying outside on public property for homeless individuals who cannot obtain shelter.” *Grants Pass ordinances impose only civil penalties, but they can still mature into criminal penalties. *District Court ruled that based on the unavailability of shelter beds, these ordinances violated the Eighth Amendment. Ninth Circuit affirmed. *SCOTUS: Enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does NOT constitute “cruel & unusual punishment” as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment (6-3 majority). VETOED BILLS by Governor *AB 544 - Voting Pilot Program @ County Jails *AB 254 - Correctional Facilities: Media Access -Required CDCR to permit media to tour facilities & interview prisoners *Weaponizing Drones Bill -Would make it illegal to equip drones with weapons KILLED BILLS *Consent Searches (3 votes shy of passing) *Purchase of foreign drones *K9/Use of force *ALPR Retention restrictions *SB 50 - Equipment violation traffic stops *SB 377 - LEO’s purchasing off-roster firearms for personal use MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES *Apple iOS Update - ~72 hours *Electronic Recovery and Access to Data (ERAD) *California Legislative & Legal Digest 2025 *California Criminal Evidence Guide - Legal Update Section (October 2024) - Ray Hill Sergeant Justin Wax #505 Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety jwax@rpcity.org