Detentions: Walking Away From A Consensual Encounter
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
The mere fact that a person or suspect refused to participate or walked away
from a consensual encounter with police does not establish reasonable
suspicion for detention. Cases cited: People v. Perrusquia (2007) 150 CA4
228; Florida v. Bostick (1991) 501 U.S. 429. (10:22)

Crime Lab Searches Following Vehicle Seizure
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney’s Office
In general, a warrant authorizing seizure of items also permits seizure of
parts of the items listed– even though the “parts” may be microscopic.
Seizing a vehicle and taking it back to the crime lab for forensic analysis is
permissible if the warrant allows a search of the vehicle or there is probable
cause to believe the vehicle may contain evidence of a crime, and the
evidence sought can only practically be detected at the crime lab. Completion
of the search may be delayed if the delay is reasonable. Cases/statute cited:
People v. Superior Court (Nasmeh) (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 85; People v.
Larkin (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 650; Pen. Code § 1534. (11:54)

Burglary Tools: Penal Code §466
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
Penal Code §466 prohibits the possession of “burglary tools” with the intent
to break into a building. The recent case of Southard addresses the questions
of what constitutes burglary tools and how can we tell if they were possessed
with the intent to break into a building. Case cited: People v. Southard
(2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 1079. (7:17)

Monitoring E-Mail & Internet Activity
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney’s Office
Internet subscribers do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, under
the Fourth Amendment, in their to/from e-mail addresses and the addresses
of the websites they visit. However, from a practical standpoint, obtaining
the information will still require a court order akin to the order necessary to
get a pen register placed. Case cited: United States v. Forrester 2007 WL
2120271. (10:37)

Weapons Screening (Revisited)
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
The courts area beginning to move away from the view that weapons
screening searches are justified based on “implied consent.” Rather, such
searches are now viewed as “administrative searches” justified by the
government’s “special need” to ensure weapons are not being carried into
certain locations that could pose a danger to public safety (i.e. airplanes).
Cases cited: U.S. v. Aukai (2007) U.S. App. 18995; U.S. v. Biswell (1972)
406 U.S. 311; Michigan State Police v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444. (9:09)

Limits On Arrests for Trespassing
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney’s Office
Simply being present on private property without the permission of the
owner, without more, does not constitute criminal trespass. This video
discusses why a suspect who was present in a fenced-in area of a housing
cooperative was not in violation of any California loitering or trespassing
statute. Case/statutes cited: Edgerly v. City and County of San Francisco
(9th Cir. 2007) 2007 WL 2034040; Pen. Code §§ 602(l),(m); 647(h);
602.5; and 602.8. (11:31)