The familiar Mirandawarnings are required for the “in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467 (1966) (emphasis added). And without those Miranda warnings, any statements made during a custodial interrogation are inadmissible in the prosecution’s case in chief. United States v. Leshuk, 65 F.3d 1105, 1108 (4th … Read more
This is a response video to a comment left by JO BR on “Can FBI record citizens in a hotel room with a secret hidden camera without a warrant? Nerber (2000)” video found at https://youtu.be/txO6CPt7JKk [Published on 12/14/2022]
The Fourth Amendment protects you against government intrusions and does not restrict private citizens. Under the private search doctrine, when a private actor finds evidence of criminal conduct after searching someone without a warrant, the government can use the evidence in criminal proceedings. (United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984)). As long as the private actor is not acting at an officer’s invitation or direction. When a private party informs the police about the incriminating evidence, an officer may conduct a search strictly limited to the scope of the private party’s search.
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Evidence derived from video surveillance of a hotel room was suppressed by the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Thomas S. Zilly, J., and the United States appealed. The Court of Appeals, James R. Browning, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from secret video surveillance in another person’s hotel room without a warrant or the consent of a participant in the monitored activity, and (2) thus, though defendants were invited to a hotel room, rented by government agents, by informants who had consented to video surveillance, once the informants left the room, defendants had reasonable expectation to be free from hidden video surveillance.
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Although parents may choose to grant their minor children joint access and mutual use of the home, parents normally retain control of the home as well as the power to rescind the authority they have given. “It does not startle us that a parent’s consent to a search of the living room in the absence of his minor child is given effect; but we should not allow the police to rely on the consent of the child to bind the parent. The common sense of the matter is that the … parent has not surrendered his privacy of place in the living room to the discretion of the … child; rather, the latter [has] privacy of place there in the discretion of the former.” (Weinreb, supra, 42 U.Chi.L.Rev. at p. 60; see People v. Jennings, supra, 142 Cal.App.2d at p. 168.)
Other courts that have considered the authority, or capacity, of a minor child to consent to a police entry of the family home generally have refused to uphold the admissibility of evidence found therein in a criminal action against the parent. The reasoning of these cases is sound: a child cannot waive the privacy rights of her parents.
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Yuen contends, inter alia, that Officer Kline’s opening the rear cargo door without his permission violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and, therefore, all evidence the government obtained through exploitation of that illegality must be suppressed as “ ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’ ” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). We assume, without deciding, that the officers’ conduct up until the time that Officer Kline opened the rear cargo door without permission did not violate the Fourth Amendment. However, Officer Kline’s opening of the rear cargo door constituted a search for purposes of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. See United States v. Winsor, 846 F.2d 1569, 1572-73 (9th Cir.1988) (en banc ) (police conducted “search” of hotel room for Fourth Amendment purposes when they gained visual entry into room through door that was opened at their command and while they stood in hotel corridor). Accordingly, in order for the search to be justified under the Fourth Amendment, at least one of the following two circumstances must have existed: (1) probable cause to believe the rear cargo area contained contraband or evidence of a crime, United States v. Bagley, 772 F.2d 482, 491 (9th Cir.1985) (“[P]robable cause alone suffices to justify a warrantless search of a vehicle lawfully parked in a public place, as long as the scope of the search is reasonable.”), or (2) the officers had an objectively reasonable fear of an immediate threat for their safety, see Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 1049, 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (during investigatory stop of automobile pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), police officer may search for weapons in passenger compartment, “limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, … if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither of these circumstances existed in the present case. There was absolutely nothing specific about the tip the officers received, nor about the circumstances in which they came upon the truck, that provided any grounds for a reasonable fear that they were in danger. Also, the officers identified the sound they heard coming from the cargo area as “drilling.” Coming, as it did, from an individual in the parking lot of a home improvement store, such activity would not render a “reasonably prudent man in such circumstances [to] be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.” Id. at 1050, 103 S.Ct. 3469. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s partial denial of Yuen’s motion to suppress, vacate the judgment, and remand to permit Yuen to withdraw his guilty plea. See *745 United States v. Bautista, 362 F.3d 584, 593 (9th Cir.2004) (similar disposition).
Full case here: United States v. Yuen, 113 F. App’x 742 (9th Cir. 2004)
Anton Vialtsin, Esq.
LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM | Criminal Defense and Business Law https://lawstache.com
(619) 357-6677
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Defendant Hall was arrested at approximately 2:30 p.m. on May 14, 2008 after he exited a house trailer at 2233 East 8th Street, Lot 340, Pueblo, Colorado. Agents had an active arrest warrant and there is no dispute the arrest itself was legal. Immediately before the arrest, agents had observed Hall and a female companion leave another residence and travel on Hall’s motorcycle to the house trailer. One officer, situated approximately 75 yards away, saw Hall near the saddle bag hanging over the rear tire of the motorcycle. At that distance he could not discern whether Hall opened the saddlebag, put something in or took something out. No officer in closer proximity testified to this saddlebag event. The officers watched the couple enter the house trailer. The couple remained inside for a period of time that has been estimated by various witnesses to range from five minutes to half an hour. The time spent inside is not critical to the issue presented on this Motion to Suppress.
Officers saw the couple leave the house trailer and as Hall was approaching the motorcycle he was placed under arrest. From a conflict in the testimony, I find that Hall was much more than an arm’s length distance from the motorcycle. Following the arrest and placing Hall in custody, the officers conducted a search of the motorcycle. The saddlebag was closed and fastened with a strap. The saddlebag was opened and in it was found approximately 100 grams of methamphetamine in three baggies, a 22 caliber Lorcin handgun and $6,000 cash. The question presented is whether the search of the motorcycle and saddlebag was incident to the arrest and thus did not require a warrant. I find it was not, and therefore the search was unreasonable as a matter of law.
In Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763-64, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969), for example, the Court established an exception to allow the contemporaneous search of a lawfully arrested person and the immediately surrounding area without a warrant in order to promote safety and prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence.
Supreme Court in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), established a bright-line rule specific to automobile searches incident to arrest. “When a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile” and “examine the contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment.” Id. at 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860. See also United States v. Franco, 981 F.2d 470, 472 (10th Cir.1992). The rule from Belton is based on the “generalization that articles inside the relatively narrow compass of the passenger compartment of an automobile are in fact generally, even if not inevitably, within the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab a weapon or [evidence].” Belton at 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860. Under this same rationale, the Court expressly noted the passenger compartment did not encompass the trunk of the automobile, leaving it beyond the scope of a permissible search incident to arrest. Id. at 460 n. 4, 101 S.Ct. 2860.
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Police search backpack. As mentioned at the outset, the dialogue between Ruffin and Howard on the side of the road had a certain unreality to it. A number of times, Ruffin seemed to go out of his way to tell Howard that he was not under arrest—even when Howard was in handcuffs and would not likely have believed he was free to terminate the encounter. Why did Ruffin go to such great lengths to communicate this message to Howard, notwithstanding the reality of the situation?
Although we don’t know for sure what was going through Ruffin’s mind, the answer is likely that he was following his training. California law enforcement agencies apparently train their officers to tell suspects that they are not under arrest, on the theory that these magic words allow officers to keep questioning suspects without advising them of their Miranda rights, even if it is otherwise obvious that the suspects are in custody and therefore entitled to Miranda ‘s protective admonitions. See, e.g. , Smith v. Clark , 612 Fed.Appx. 418, 424 (9th Cir.2015) (unpublished) (Watford, J., concurring).
Why, in turn, do law enforcement agencies train their officers to circumvent Miranda in this way? Apparently it is based on a series of court decisions that give “essentially dispositive weight” to these magic words, immunizing the government from adverse Miranda rulings in cases where the suspect cannot possibly have felt free to leave. Id. at 423 ; see also Smith v. Clark , 804 F.3d 983, 986–87 (9th Cir.2015) (W. Fletcher, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). In other words, law enforcement agencies train officers to work their way around Miranda because courts have signed off on the workaround.
In some cases, perhaps this practice helps officers obtain evidence when a suspect would otherwise clam up. But if Ruffin was following this practice here, it backfired. Because Ruffin made clear he was not in the process of arresting Howard when he announced he was going to search the backpack, Howard’s statements following that announcement, and the gun found in the backpack, must be suppressed.
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
In this case, a highway patrol officer announced he was going to search a suspect’s backpack. That search would have violated the Fourth Amendment, because the officer did not have a warrant to search the backpack, and no exception to the warrant requirement applied at the time the officer made his announcement. In response to the officer’s threat, the suspect confessed to being a felon and having a gun in the backpack. The government has now charged him with being a felon in possession of a firearm. But the government may not use in court evidence that an officer obtains through a threat to violate the Fourth Amendment. Kentucky v. King , 563 U.S. 452, 462–63, 131 S.Ct. 1849, 179 L.Ed.2d 865 (2011) ; United States v. Saafir , 754 F.3d 262, 266 (4th Cir.2014). Therefore, the evidence the officer obtained as a result of his threat (specifically, the confession and the gun) must be suppressed.
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
A search incident to a lawful arrest is an exception to the general rule that warrantless searches violate the Fourth Amendment. The exception allows a police officer making a lawful arrest to conduct a search of the area within the arrestee’s “immediate control,” that is, “the area from within which [an arrestee] might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.” Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969) (internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 344, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009).
The Exigency Exception
Under the exigency exception, officers may make a warrantless search if: (1) they have probable cause to believe that the item or place to be searched contains evidence of a crime, and (2) they are facing exigent circumstances that require immediate police action. See Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 298–301, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967) (upholding a warrantless search where “the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative”). We have defined exigent circumstances as “those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry [or search] … was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.” United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Estate of Merchant v. Comm’r, 947 F.2d 1390, 1392–93 (9th Cir.1991). To be reasonable, a search under this exception must be limited in scope so that it is “strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation.” Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 393, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Reyes–Bosque, 596 F.3d 1017, 1029 (9th Cir.2010) ( “In order to prove that the exigent circumstances doctrine justified a warrantless search, the government must [also] show that … the search’s scope and manner were reasonable to meet the need.”).
The Vehicle Exception
Another exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement is the vehicle exception. Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 153–54, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). Under the vehicle exception, officers may search a vehicle and any containers found therein without a warrant, so long as they have probable cause. California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 580, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991) ; United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 821–22, 825, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982). Unlike search incident to arrest, the vehicle exception is not rooted in arrest and the Chimel rationales of preventing arrestees from harming officers and destroying evidence. Instead, the vehicle exception is motivated by the supposedly lower expectation of privacy individuals have in their vehicles as well as the mobility of vehicles, which allows evidence contained within those vehicles to be easily concealed from the police. Carroll, 267 U.S. at 153, 45 S.Ct. 280 ; California v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390–91, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985).
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
Burglary attorney. Early one October morning, defendant Isaiah Hendrix walked up to a house in **281 Oxnard, knocked on the door, and rang the doorbell. Hearing no response, Hendrix walked around the house to the backyard, opened a screen door, and attempted to open the locked glass door behind it. Then, failing that, Hendrix sat down on a bench and stayed there. Hendrix was sitting on the bench when police arrived. Hendrix told police he was there to visit his cousin, but Hendrix’s cousin did not, in fact, live in the house. Hendrix was charged with burglary.
At trial, the court gave the jury a standard mistake of fact instruction, which informed jurors that they should not convict Hendrix if they determined he lacked criminal intent because he mistakenly believed a relevant fact — namely, that the house belonged to his cousin and not to a stranger. But the instruction specified that the mistake in question had to be a reasonable one. All parties now acknowledge this was error: To negate the specific criminal intent required for burglary, a defendant’s mistaken belief need not be reasonable, just genuinely held. The question before us is whether the instructional error was prejudicial and thus requires reversal. The Court of Appeal, concluding Hendrix’s claim of mistake was not credible in any event, answered no. We reach a different conclusion. The instructional error effectively precluded the jury from giving full consideration to a mistake of fact claim that was supported by substantial evidence, where resolution of the issue was central to the question whether Hendrix possessed the criminal intent necessary for conviction. Whether that claim is credible is a matter for a jury to decide. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings.
Based in San Diego, CA
Licensed: California, Nevada, and Federal Courts
The San Diego-based business litigation and criminal defense attorneys at LAWSTACHE™ LAW FIRM are experienced and dedicated professionals singularly focused on one goal: achieving the best results for our clients. Through our hard work and expertise, we guarantee all of our clients that we will diligently protect their rights and zealously pursue justice. Our clients deserve nothing less!
