California Case Law

Question 1

Chimel v. California

Answer 1

Police officers, armed with an arrest warrant but not a search warrant, were admitted to petitioner’s home by his wife, where they awaited petitioner’s arrival. When he entered, he was served with the warrant. Although he denied the officers’ request to “look around,” they conducted a search of the entire house “on the basis of the lawful arrest.” At petitioner’s trial on burglary charges, items taken from his home were admitted over objection that they had been unconstitutionally seized. His conviction was affirmed by the California appellate courts, which held, despite their acceptance of petitioner’s contention that the arrest warrant was invalid, that, since the arresting officers had procured the warrant “in good faith,” and since, in any event, they had had sufficient information to constitute probable cause for the arrest, the arrest was lawful. The courts also held that the search was justified as incident to a valid arrest.

Question 2

Miranda V. Arizona

Answer 2

The U.S> Supreme Court established an irrebuttable presumption that a statement is involuntary if made during a custodial interrogation without the “Miranda Warning” given. The warning requirements only apply when a person is in custody and interrogated. In this case, “Custody” is an arrest or when Freedom is Significantly Deprived to be equivalent to arrest. “Interrogation” is the use of words or actions to elicit an incriminating response from an average person.

Question 3

In Re Gault

Answer 3

In this case the Supreme Court Established that Juveniles have several rights that adults have. Such as Due Process, Right to Counsel, Right to not self incriminate, and the Right to a hearing with cross examination of witnesses. (Always read juveniles their Miranda Warnings)

Question 4

U.S. V. Paulette

Answer 4

Reasonable Suspicion to Detain for Narcotics. Key points of case were:

Engaged in criminal activity based on hand movements.

Efforst to Evade police based on noticing their presence (Walking /Running/ changing direction)

Presence in a High Crime Area.

Question 5

U.S. V. Cortez

Answer 5

States a vehicle can be stopped based on the suspicion that a crime has occurred and not just for a vehicle code violation.

Question 6

County of Riverside V. McLaughlin

Answer 6

Felony Cases
This stated the reason for the use of a Probable Cause Declaration Form and why In-Custody Reports must be completed by EOW

Mandatory Post Arrest Hearing to determine probable cause for arrest. Arrestee must get a hearing within 48 hours.

Question 7

Minnesota V. Dickerson

Answer 7

Stated that during a “Terry Frisk” detecting contraband based on training and experience may be seized. (Officers must know immediately, no second guessing or second search.)

Question 8

U.S. V. Finley

Answer 8

Stated that Officers may search the internal phone records and text messages on a cell phone seized from a person during a lawful arrest as a search incident to arrest.

Overturned by Riley V. California

Question 9

U.S. V. Santana

Answer 9

While in “Hot Pursuit” of a wanted Felony Suspect, from a public place, into a private residence to make an arrest is justified.

Question 10

Ker V. California

Answer 10

Officers may enter a residence to prevent the destruction of evidence.

Question 11

Warden V. Hayden

Answer 11

Stated officers can enter a residence based on exigent circumstances.

Question 12

U.S. V. Wright

Answer 12

Use of Deception is acceptable under the 4th amendment.

EX: U.C. Officers contacted Wright claiming to have car trouble. Wright let them inside, Officers find drugs and come back with a search warrant and arrest warrant for Wright.

Question 13

U.S. V. Neff

Answer 13

A “Terry Stop” (Terry V. Ohio) Does not become unreasonable because officers use handcuffs or place a subject on the ground. In addition officers may also use their guns in a stop where police reasonably believe their weapons are necessary for safety.

Question 14

U.S. V. Robinson

Answer 14

Officers may conduct search incident to arrest.

Ex: Finding Meth in a cigarette pack after arresting subject for an offense other than drugs.

Question 15

Wyoming V. Houghton

Answer 15

If there is Probable Cause for the search of a car, Officers may inspect all areas capable of concealing the object, including passenger belongings.

Question 16

Cady V. Dombrowski

Answer 16

This established the “Community Caretaking” Exception for unreasonable search and seizure.

Ex: Booting a Door on a 911 medical aid call because no one is answering.

Question 17

Tennessee V. Garner

Answer 17

Grants the ability for officers to use deadly force to stop a fleeing Felon. It is only justified to prevent the escape if the subject presents a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to officers or others.

Question 18

People v. Ooley

Answer 18

the defendant was arrested while hiding inside a hotel room rented by another man. The defendant was the guest of the man who rented the room. Incriminating items were recovered as a result of the entry. The defendant moved to suppress the items on the grounds of an illegal entry and search. “The mere legitimate
presence on the searched premises by invitation or otherwise is insufficient by itself to create a protectable expectation. A defendant must also establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the particular area searched in order for a Fourth Amendment challenge to be allowed.”

Question 19

People v. Satz

Answer 19

Please note that a person who rents a hotel room by fraudulent use of another’s credit card lacks standing to object to the police entry of the room. “The defrauding occupant has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the room, or an expectation that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.”

Question 20

People v. Rivera

Answer 20

Numerous Court of Appeal cases have approved the
police practice of a “knock and talk” The Court stated, “Even if acting on an anonymous, uncorroborated tip, police may knock on the door of a residence, speak with the occupant, and request permission to enter and search.”

Question 21

People v. Sweig

Answer 21

California’s Third District Court of Appeal held that a warrantless search of a residence resulting in the seizure of an illegal semi-automatic assault rifle violated the Fourth Amendment despite the fact the search was conducted for the primary purpose ofseizing deadly weapons as mandated by Welfare and Institutions Code section 8102.