Posted June 18, 2007

 Brendlin v. California (2007) WL 1730143.

 US Supreme Court Reverses California Supreme Court on Passenger "Standing"

           In People v. Brendlin (2006) 38 Cal.4^th 1107, the California Supreme Court ruled that passengers in stopped vehicles are not necessarily detained, and so may not challenge the validity of the stop. The US Supreme Court has unanimously reversed this ruling and held that passengers are detained and may move to suppress evidence incriminating them on the grounds that the evidence is the "fruit" of an unlawful stop.

           In so ruling, the court also said that passengers should not reasonably expect to be able to come and go freely, but are subject to the officer's "unquestioned command" of the situation. This language contradicts an earlier California Court of Appeal decision that had held that officers could not order passengers to remain at the scene of the stop unless there was individualized suspicion focused on the passengers. People v. Gonzales (1992) 7 Cal.App.4^th 381.

           The lessons of the Brendlin decision are that (1) passengers will have "standing" to move to suppress evidence or to bring civil rights lawsuits for unlawful detention if they are in a vehicle that is stopped without reasonable suspicion; (2) passengers who try to leave may be ordered to remain during the stop; and (3) no vehicle stop should be conducted unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a mover or equipment violation to justify the detention.

Posted May 21, 2007

LA County v. Rettele (2007) WL 1461071

US Supreme Court Rules Search Warrant Execution Reasonable

          LASD Deputies served a valid fraud search warrant, unaware the suspects had moved from the location. One suspect had a handgun registered to him. Deputies ordered two naked adults out of bed at gunpoint and allowed them to dress after 2-3 minutes. These people were of a different race than the suspects. After realizing their mistake, the deputies apologized and promptly left the scene.

          The couple sued for violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, claiming the warrant was executed in an unreasonable manner. The US District Court judge dismissed the suit, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that as soon as the deputies saw that the people in bed were not the same race as the suspects, they should have immediately left the house.

          Reversing the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court noted that people of different races may reside together, and one suspect was known to have a registered firearm. This gave them a right to secure the scene while checking for others. Since the deputies did not require the plaintiffs to remain undressed very long, they were not unreasonable in their manner of executing the warrant:

          "The Constitution does not require an officer to ignore the possibility that an armed suspect may sleep with a weapon within reach. When officers execute a valid warrant and act in a reasonable manner to protect themselves from harm, the Fourth Amendment is not violated."

Posted May 10, 2007

Spielbauer v. County of Santa Clara (2007) 146 Cal.App.4^th 914

California Supreme Court Grants Review

           On January 16, 2007, the summary of  Spielbauer was posted here. This decision called into question the Lybarger procedures for compelling statements in administrative inquiries, absent formal use immunity.

           On May 9, 2007, the California Supreme Court granted the County's petition for review of the court of appeal decision. This action has the effect of making the appellate decision null and void as a precedent. Until the California Supreme Court's decision in Spielbauer is issued, this returns the situation to the status that existed before the appellate decision was published.

           The California Supreme Court's decision will be summarized on LawWatch as soon as it is issued, which could be several months to a year and a half.