-
30 Cal. App. 3d 1058 California Court of Appeal March 7, 1973 No. Crim. 21752
When I received the driver’s license from the young lady, 1 went back to the radio car and ran a warrant check, and while I was waiting for the warrant check, I issued a citation for speeding. Q.
It is, of course, a commonplace to observe that the Fourth Amendment applies to judicial power as well as police power, for a search and seizure pursuant to warrant is unreasonable when the warrant is not supported by probable cause
Another employee noted the license number of their car and reported it to the police.
-
80 Cal. App. 3d 665 California Court of Appeal May 8, 1978 No. Civ. 42202
A lawful, and later unlawful, entries of premises disclosed evidence of car theft, on the basis of which a search warrant was secured.
Without a required Miranda admonition Tillery, upon his arrest, told police officers that his car was “up the road aways.”
A search of the vehicle on a search warrant disclosed incriminating evidence leading to his conviction. Justifying the search, the court stated: “The car had to be somewhere between the point of arrest and the scene of the crime.
-
51 Cal. App. 3d 1008 California Court of Appeal October 8, 1975 No. Crim. 14222
Two officers were patrolling their beat in a high-crime area in a marked police car.
As the officers approached, Rios got out from his side of the car without being asked, and upon request of one of the officers his driver’s license was produced.
*1012 Rios’ remaining contention is that the revolver was discovered through an unreasonable search. This contention is also without merit.
-
17 Cal. App. 4th 917 California Court of Appeal August 4, 1993 No. H009669
Becerra had defendant and Cuellar get out of the car so he could search inside without having to lean over them and expose the items on his gun belt. At that point, a backup officer arrived.
) *927 Thus, an officer may order the driver out of the car (Pennsylvania v.
These rules effectively prevent the use of routine traffic stops for vehicle code violations solely as a opportunity to search drivers, passengers, and/or vehicles without a warrant for purposes unrelated to traffic violation.
-
16 Cal. Rptr. 3d 258 California Court of Appeal July 26, 2004 No. H025621
They did so without a warrant or probable cause and without knowledge that the juvenile was subject to a probation search condition.
However, the Robles court opined that when police search without a warrant, without any perceived limits to their authority, and without grounds to justify the search, the search is arbitrary.
that police may not rely on a search condition that they were unaware of at the time of the search.
-
49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831 California Court of Appeal October 11, 2006 No. H029017
Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.” (Payton v. New York, supra, 445 U.S. at p. 590 ; see also Johnson v.
Boyer (2006) 38 Cal.4th 412, 445 [ 42 Cal.Rptr.3d 677 , 133 P.3d 581 ] [search without warrant may “be based on the consent of a person, other than the accused, who has joint dominion or control over the area or thing to be searched
[government may not rely on inevitable discovery doctrine to “avoid suppression of evidence seized without a warrant ... simply by showing that it could have obtained a valid warrant had it sought one”].)
-
77 Cal. App. 3d 568 California Court of Appeal January 13, 1978 No. Crim. 15911
Without any further inquiry, the parole officer asked the police officer to apprehend appellant and to search him when he was located.
The search, being conducted without a warrant, placed a burden upon the prosecution to show proper justification. (People v. McKinnon (1972) 7 Cal.3d 899, 905 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 897 , 500 P.2d 1097 ].)
The distinction between a police search and a parole search would be meaningless if all that was required for a parole search was for the parole officers to sign a blank check for the police without any knowledge of underlying facts
-
310 P.2d 180 California Court of Appeal April 29, 1957 No. Civ. 17605
The record raises clearly the issue—may police officers make an arrest without a warrant and a search and seizure based only upon information from a confidential informant whose information has proved reliable in the past, that an
It is not disputed that there may be reasonable searches, incident to an arrest, without a search warrant.
Merely because the officers could have obtained a search warrant does not render illegal their seizure without one.
-
200 Cal. App. 4th 735 California Court of Appeal November 4, 2011 No. B227697
“Once a vehicle has been detained in a valid traffic stop, police officers may order the driver and passengers out of the car pending completion of the stop without violating the Fourth Amendment.” (People v.
Where neither justification is present, “a search of an arrestee’s vehicle will be unreasonable unless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies.”
may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle ....
-
19 Cal. App. 3d 321 California Court of Appeal August 18, 1971 No. Civ. 13064
A search warrant obtained upon information acquired by an illegal search is itself invalid. (People v. Roberts, 47 Cal.2d 374, 377 [ 303 P.2d 721 ]; People v.
The search warrant was “come at” by exploitation of the illegality. As a product of the illegal entry, the search warrant was itself tainted with illegality. (People v. Roberts, supra; People v.
the search warrant.
-
257 Cal. App. 2d 82 California Court of Appeal December 18, 1967 No. Crim. 6070
Defendants assert that the police searched the car without a search warrant and that said search was neither incidental to their arrest nor made pursuant to their consent.
Since the People concede that the search was made without a warrant and was not incidental to defendants' arrest, the sole question before this court is whether defendants can be deemed to have consented thereto.
This argument is without merit.
-
253 Cal. App. 2d 986 California Court of Appeal August 29, 1967 No. Crim. 12310
The defendants were ordered out of the car and searched for weapons, and in the search the police found a bottle of red capsules in Hulten's pocket.
) [3] The other justification relied upon to support the detention was that both defendants were on probation from previous *991 convictions and therefore subject to arrest without warrant by any police officer. (Pen.
to warrant such a search, were not required to discuss the question whether the officers would have been justified in stopping the car on the basis of some lesser quantum of evidence for purposes of interrogating the driver, but with
-
300 P.2d 729 California Court of Appeal August 27, 1956 No. Crim. 5653
The pedal pushers were identified as having been stolen from the Baisley car and as one of the garments that the defendant put down on the police car.
The clothes were placed on the police car by the defendant voluntarily, and he started to unwrap them and show the items to the officers.
J., and Doran, J., concurred. 1 " A peace-officer may make an arrest in obedience to a warrant delivered to him, or may, without a warrant, arrest a person: ‘ ‘ 1.
-
52 Cal. Rptr. 3d 162 California Court of Appeal December 13, 2006 No. B188129
*759 BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Santa Monica Police Department Officer Derek Morton saw appellant driving without a seatbelt. He followed appellant’s car and turned on the overhead lights on his police car.
The prosecution always has the burden of justifying the search by proving the search fell within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. ( In re Tyrell J.
Accordingly, we do not consider such a theory, which may not have been supported by the facts, as the car may have been searched after appellant was transported to the police station.
-
131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 249 California Court of Appeal February 28, 2003 No. A097337
Taylor (6th Cir. 2001) 248 F.3d 506, 513 [officer left behind to secure residence while search warrant is obtained may conduct protective sweep]; Drohan v.
Vaughn (1st Cir. 1999) 176 F.3d 17, 22 [officers executing search warrant may conduct protective sweep]; U.S. v. Patrick (D.C.
Cir. 1992) 959 F.2d 991, 996-997 [police may conduct protective sweep of bedroom after lessee has given consent to search other parts of apartment].)
-
188 Cal. App. 4th 775 California Court of Appeal September 21, 2010 No. G042010
In Williams , the police stopped a car because the driver was not wearing a seatbelt, and arrested him pursuant to an outstanding arrest warrant. (Williams, supra, 145 Cal.App.4th at p. 759 .)
In Aguilar , the police stopped a car for an illegal stop and an unsignalled turn, and arrested the driver for driving without a valid license. (Aguilar, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1051 .)
Opperman, supra, 428 U.S. at p. 376 [inventory search may not be “a pretext concealing an investigatory police *790 motive”]; Bertine, supra, 479 U.S. at p. 376 [inventory search improper when police officers impound vehicle
-
44 Cal. App. 4th 220 California Court of Appeal April 8, 1996 No. B082840
Five days later Heather and the police returned to the house. Heather wanted to remove additional property from the house and police wanted to conduct an additional search. Heather consented to a police search of the house.
*237 A search without a warrant is presumed to be illegal. (People v. James (1977) 19 Cal.3d 99, 106 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 447 , 561 P.2d 1135 ].)
Once a defendant shows the search was warrantless, the burden shifts to the People to justify the search by establishing the search fell within an exception to the warrant requirement. (Coolidge v.
-
196 Cal. App. 2d 223 California Court of Appeal October 11, 1961 No. Crim. 3871
When the defendant denied the latter but admitted he was on parole and that he had violated his parole by leaving the state and driving the car without the permission of his parole officer, he was arrested and searched.
The attorney general argues that since there was no testimony that the arresting officers did not have a warrant, it must be presumed that the arrest and search were lawful.
A search incident to a lawful arrest extends to the person as well as to the premises under his control. Here, the officers saw the tools on the floor of the car during the questioning of the defendant.
-
115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 483 California Court of Appeal January 16, 2002 No. D036108
acted without a warrant.
or seizure (e.g., an unreasonable search without a warrant).
and authorities showing the search was made without a warrant, and that without a warrant the search was illegal.
-
237 Cal. App. 2d 627 California Court of Appeal October 22, 1965 No. Crim. 3711
On June 8, 1964, two Stockton police officers in a patrol car stopped an automobile which was being driven without stoplights. One of them, Officer Tribble, asked the driver, the defendant, for his driver’s license.
If the arrest here was lawful then the search and seizure were also lawful. “ Reasonable or probable cause for arrest without a warrant requires such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and
The arrest here without a warrant was reasonable. The officers properly stopped a car without stoplights. Defendant was operating the car without a driver’s license.
Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.