A 2023 attempted murder conviction was reversed on appeal and sent back to trial court after the defendant showed the prosecutor used racially biased and racially coded language in the case. The RJA took effect in 2021 with the intent of ensuring race plays no role in seeking or obtaining convictions or in sentencing.
The use of “biometrics” such as fingerprints to force the opening of private devices can raise multiple Constitutional arguments, reminding detectives to be precise in search warrant requests to assure admissibility of evidence seized after a defendant is compelled to unlock a private device.
Unanimous California High Court decision says police officers cannot detain someone simply because that person tries to avoid interacting with them, noting that many people of color perceive that engaging with police at all, even in innocuous ways, risks their safety. The ruling differs from a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
This issue is related to another just-published article exploring Fourth Amendment Waiver searches. Diverting from the “mission of the traffic stop” to investigate other, unrelated potential criminal violations may convert an otherwise lawful traffic stop into an illegally prolonged detention.
A 2023 appellate case from Sacramento illustrates problems when an officer prolongs a detention during a traffic stop by asking about other possible criminal activity first, before discovering a subject’s Fourth Amendment probation waiver and finding incriminating evidence.
Scenario: potential school shooting threat. Parents of possible suspect are uncooperative as to their son’s whereabouts. How much force can you employ to detain them? Are you protected with qualified immunity if it goes sideways? A Sacramento appellate decision sheds light on the details in this tricky situation.
Video evidence tells a very different story than what this deputy and his partner wrote in their reports of a suspect’s chase and arrest. An appeals court decision in February allows the case to proceed to trial on the charged offenses.
In a January appellate decision, the court compared the intrusiveness of fixed cameras throughout a city capturing public movements and cellphone and aerial surveillance compiled while tracking an individual’s movements over a length of time. Big Brother aside, this could be a valuable tool for law enforcement.
A federal case decided in February delves into issues of conflicting consent to search a residence when tenants disagree, and perhaps more importantly, whether the one objecting is in the “immediate vicinity” of the residence for his objection to prevail.
Officers park behind and approach a man talking on his phone in his car, illuminating him with their flashlights. After some casual conversation, they discover he’s on parole, search and find a gun. The trial court ruled one way, the appeals court reversed. Was this a good search?
