Car Stops for Missing Plates
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
In People v. Saunders, the Supreme Court upheld a vehicle stop for missing
plates despite the display of a temporary operating permit. Now one of the
state’s appellate courts has significantly limited the application of Saunders,
and it’s important to understand the distinctions involved. Justice Bedsworth
explains what will be necessary to support a vehicle stop for missing or
expired tags if a temporary operating permit is displayed. Cases cited:
People v. Saunders (2006) 38 Cal 4th 1129; People v. Hernandez (2007)
146 Cal. App. 4th 773. (5:45)

Limits on Asking for Proof of Insurance
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
A driver cannot be cited for lack of proof of financial responsibility under
Vehicle Code section 16028 unless he/she is involved in an accident or is
being cited for another code violation. Thus, once an officer determines that
a driver has not committed any traffic violation, extending the detention to
ask for proof of insurance is improper. Case/statute cited: People v. Verdugo
(2007) 2007 WL 1347679; Veh. Code, § 16028. (5:08)

Search and Seizure: The Last Word on Passengers
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a passenger in a vehicle stopped by
police is “detained” to the same degree the driver is, regardless of whether
police have taken independent action with respect to the passenger. Case
cited: Brendlin v. California (2007) 127 S.Ct. 1508. (6:04)

Definition of "Public Place" for PC § 647(f)
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
For purposes of statutes prohibiting certain conduct, such as drinking or
intoxication, in a “public place,” whether a location is a “public place” is
determined by whether a member of the public can access the place “without
challenge.” Thus, an officer could not properly detain someone for carrying
a beer can in the courtyard of an apartment complex surrounded by a fence
and locked gates. Case/statute cited: People v. Krohn (2007) 149 Cal.
App.4th 1294; Pen Code, § 647(f). (7:21)

Discovery Duties of Police
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
Every police officer should be aware of the prosecution’s duty to provide the
defense with any exculpatory evidence they have. Under Brady v. Maryland,
the prosecution must turn over to the defense any information they have
that tends to show the defendant is not guilty. People v. Johnson is a case in
which the prosecution, which includes the police, failed to do that. The result:
reversal of the first degree murder conviction. Justice Bedsworth describes
the facts of Johnson to make it clear just how closely this rule is applied.
Cases cited: Brady v. Maryland (1996) 373 U.S. 83; People v. Johnson
(2006) 142 Cal. App. 4th 776. (7:51)

When "Custody" Occurs in Jails for Miranda Purposes
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Just because a suspect is in jail does not mean the suspect is “in custody” for
Miranda purposes. This video outlines the factors used in determining when it
is necessary to give Miranda warnings to an incarcerated suspect before
interviewing that suspect about a crime committed while the suspect was
already in jail awaiting trial on a different crime. Case cited: People v.
Macklem (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 674; People v. Fraduie (2000) 80
Cal.App.4th 15. (8:25)