Harvey-Madden

The Harvey–Madden rule is a court-created evidentiary rule that only applies at Penal Code 1538.5 hearings.

People v. Romero

Harvey-Madden can be invoked orally, without notice. People v. Collins (1997)

People v. Perez (2002)

People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal.3d 263

People v. Brown (2015) 61 Cal.4th 968

People v. Harvey (1958) 156 Cal.App.2d 516

Remers v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 659

People v. Madden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1017

Ojeda v. Superior COurt (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 909

People v. Magana (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 453

In re Eskiel S. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1638, 1643.)

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

“(Harvey-Madden) governs 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.” People v. Gomez (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 531, 540.

[“(W)hen the first officer passes off information through ‘official channels’ that leads to arrest, the officer must also show basis for his probable cause.” People v. Ramirez (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1553.

People v. Brown (2015) 61 Cal.4th 968

Anonymous 911

Navarette found an anonymous motorist's 911 call sufficiently reliable to support the traffic stop of a pickup truck on suspicion of drunk driving. (Navarette, supra, ––– U.S. at p. ––––, 134 S.Ct. at pp. 1688–1690.)

People v. Brown (2015) 61 Cal.4th 968, 981

First, a caller's personal knowledge “lends significant support to the tip's reliability.” (Navarette, supra, ––– U.S. at p. ––––, 134 S.Ct. at p. 1689; accord, People v. Dolly (2007) 40 Cal.4th 458, 467, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 803, 150 P.3d 693 (Dolly ); Wells, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1087, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 8, 136 P.3d 810.)

People v. Brown (2015) 61 Cal.4th 968, 981

Second, the caller's report was contemporaneous, a factor that “has long been treated as especially reliable.” *982 Navarette, supra, ––– U.S. at p. ––––, 134 S.Ct. at p. 1689; accord, Dolly, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 467, 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 803, 150 P.3d 693; Wells, supra, 38 Cal.4th at p. 1087, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 8, 136 P.3d 810.) Indeed, the dispatcher confirmed she could hear people screaming in the background of the call, further corroborating the caller's account. The caller also told the dispatcher that he could hear the siren and see the lights of the responding patrol car.

People v. Brown (2015) 61 Cal.4th 968, 981–982