Harvey-Madden: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Harvey-Madden can be invoked orally, without notice. People v. Collins Hearsay is admissible when the information provided to the arresting officer by other officers is speci...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
In re Richard G. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1259. | In re Richard G. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1259. | ||
People v. Lazanis (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 49, 59. | |||
"California courts have long and consistently rejected the contention that probable cause for an arrest is established where arresting officers are proven to have relied on information furnished by other officers in their own departments without further prosecution proof [that] the information on which the arresting officers acted was actually given to those officers who transmitted that information to the arresting officers." | |||
People v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 228, 234 | |||
"Justifying an arrest or detention based on information received by an officer through 'official channels' requires the prosecution to trace the information received by the arresting officer back to its source and prove that the [source] had the requisite probable cause or reasonable suspicion to justify the arrest or detention." | |||
In re Eskiel S. (1993) 15 Cal. App.4th 1639, 1643. | |||
"In California, certain evidentiary rules have been established to govern the manner in which the prosecution may prove the underlying grounds for arrest when the authority to arrest has been transmitted to the arresting officer through police channels. These evidentiary rules are often referred to as the 'Harvey-Madden rule.'" | |||
People v. Collins (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 988, 993 | |||
Revision as of 22:33, 7 December 2017
Harvey-Madden can be invoked orally, without notice. People v. Collins
Hearsay is admissible when the information provided to the arresting officer by other officers is specific and reliable. People v. Gomez (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 531, 541.
In re Richard G. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1259.
People v. Lazanis (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 49, 59.
"California courts have long and consistently rejected the contention that probable cause for an arrest is established where arresting officers are proven to have relied on information furnished by other officers in their own departments without further prosecution proof [that] the information on which the arresting officers acted was actually given to those officers who transmitted that information to the arresting officers."
People v. Armstrong (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 228, 234
"Justifying an arrest or detention based on information received by an officer through 'official channels' requires the prosecution to trace the information received by the arresting officer back to its source and prove that the [source] had the requisite probable cause or reasonable suspicion to justify the arrest or detention."
In re Eskiel S. (1993) 15 Cal. App.4th 1639, 1643.
"In California, certain evidentiary rules have been established to govern the manner in which the prosecution may prove the underlying grounds for arrest when the authority to arrest has been transmitted to the arresting officer through police channels. These evidentiary rules are often referred to as the 'Harvey-Madden rule.'" People v. Collins (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 988, 993