PAS Devices
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
The use of preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) devices has made defense of
DUIs considerably more difficult. Even if regarded simply as additional field
sobriety tests, PASs carry a lot of weight, yet they are coming under fire in
an increasing number of cases. Justice Bedsworth examines Hallquist and
explains what rules for PAS usage can be derived from the case. Case cited:
People v. Hallquist (05 Daily Journal DAR 12075). (7:59)

Anal Penetration Through Clothing Is Sodomy
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Where a victim’s anus is penetrated by a perpetrator’s penis, it is a violation
of the statute prohibiting sodomy, regardless of whether the victim is wearing
clothes such as underwear and there is no actual skin-to-skin contact. If it
cannot be determined whether the object doing the penetrating is a penis or
some other object, the statute violated is the one prohibiting penetration by a
foreign object. Case/Statutes cited: People v. Ribera (2005) 133
Cal.App.4th 81; Pen. Code §§ 286, 289. (3:49)

PC §12022(b): Personal Use of a BB Gun
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
A BB gun is a “dangerous weapon” within the meaning of PC §12022(b),
regardless of whether it is operable or capable of inflicting GBI. Cases and
Statutes cited: In re Bartholomew D. (2005) 131 CA4 317; In re Arturo H.
(1996) 42 CA4 1694; PC §12022(b); PC §12001(g); PC §626.10. (7:27)

Not All Stationhouse Interviews Are Custodial Interrogation
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Just because a suspect is a juvenile, is interviewed in an isolated portion of a
police station, and is told he is a suspect does not mean that the juvenile is in
custody for purposes of the Miranda rule. No Miranda warning are likely
going to be required in circumstances where the juvenile is voluntarily
brought down to the station and told he is not under arrest and free to leave
at any time. Case cited: In re Kenneth S (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 54. (6:33)

Courtroom Apparel: Victim's Family
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
While a police officer’s job does not usually extend to monitoring the clothing
worn at trial, a recent 9th Circuit case should be considered by officers. In this
case, a murder conviction was reversed because of what the victim’s family
wore to court during the trial. Justice Bedsworth explains how this could
happen and suggests mentioning it to your witnesses or bringing it to the
attention of the prosecution if it is being done by the defendant’s supporters.
Case cited: Musladin v. Lamarque (05 Daily Journal DAR 12592). (7:16)

Cases Broadening the Rape Statute
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
California courts have been increasingly willing to find a rape occurred in
situations involving little if any force greater than that involved in
perpetrating the act of intercourse against the will of the victim as well as in
situations where the nonconsensual intercourse is accompanied by consensual
sexual contact. This video discusses the latest cases in this trend. Cases cited:
In re Jose P. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 110; People v. Griffin (2004) 33
Cal.4th 1015; In re John Z. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1056. (6:15)