Search and Seizure

A custodial arrest for a fine-only offense does not violate the Fourth Amendment. (People v. McKay (2002) 27 Cal.4th 601, 606.)

Violation of state statutes for arrest does not violate the Fourth Amendment. (People v. McKay (2002) 27 Cal.4th 601, 606.)

Motion to Suppress

PC991 motion cannot be used to suppress evidence. (Barajas v. Appellate Division (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 944.)

As a rule, a defendant is allowed only one pretrial evidentiary hearing and the court is without jurisdiction to authorize a second evidentiary hearing. (People v. Nelson, 126 Cal. App. 3d 978, 981, 179 Cal. Rptr. 195 (1st Dist. 1981); see also, Madril v. Superior Court, 15 Cal. 3d 73, 77-78, 123 Cal. Rptr. 465, 539 P.2d 33 (1975); People v. Dubose, 17 Cal. App. 3d 43, 47, 94 Cal. Rptr. 376 (1st Dist. 1971); People v. Superior Court, 10 Cal. App. 3d 477, 480-481, 89 Cal. Rptr. 223 (2d Dist. 1970)). This rule is often referred to as “one bite at the apple.”

A defendant may use both a post-PX 1538.5(i) and a 995 to challenge a motion to suppress denied at preliminary hearing. (People v. Kidd (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 12, overruled on another ground in People v. Tacardon (2022) 14 Cal.5th 235.)

PC1510 only requires the motion be made, not heard, within the timeline. (Rodriguez v. Superior Court (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1453.)

Hearing on Motion to Suppress

There are two exceptions to hearsay in hearings under Pen. Code, § 1538.5 that frequently arise: (1) hearsay and opinion are admissible if they relate to a witness's relevant and subjective state of mind (see, for example, People v. Conrad, 31 Cal. App. 3d 308, 320–321, 107 Cal. Rptr. 421 (2d Dist. 1973); and (2) hearsay is admissible on the issue of probable cause (see, for example. People v. Magana, 95 Cal. App. 3d 453, 460–461, 157 Cal. Rptr. 173 (2d Dist. 1979); Brinegar v. U.S., 338 U.S. 160, 69 S. Ct. 1302, 93 L. Ed. 1879 (1949)).

Detention

Shining a spotlight on a parked car is not a detention. (People v. Tacardon (2022) 14 Cal.5th 235.)

A detention may occur for a future crime that is about to occur. (People v. Ellis (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1198; People v. Aldridge (1984) 35 Cal.3d 473, 478.)

Fact analysis vs consensual encounter. (People v. Paul (Feb. 14, 2022, B320488))

Penal Code 833.5:

(a) In addition to any other detention permitted by law, if a peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that a person has a firearm or other deadly weapon with him or her in violation of any provision of law relating to firearms or deadly weapons the peace officer may detain that person to determine whether a crime relating to firearms or deadly weapons has been committed. For purposes of this section, “reasonable cause to detain” requires that the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him or her to suspect that some offense relating to firearms or deadly weapons has taken place or is occurring or is about to occur and that the person he or she intends to detain is involved in that offense. The circumstances must be such as would cause any reasonable peace officer in like position, drawing when appropriate on his or her training and experience, to suspect the same offense and the same involvement by the person in question.

Officer Safety

Pennslyvania v. Mimms 434 US 106

Wilson 519 US 408

Detention facilities

A visitor to a detention facility consents to a lesser expectation of privacy. (People v. Boutler (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 761, 769-772.)

Ruse

People v. Colt (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1404