False Compartments (H&S Code §11366.8)
with William W. Bedsworth, Appellate Court Justice, State of California
Justice Bedsworth analyzes and explains the requirements for a H&S Code
§11366.8 (false compartment) violation, using the California Supreme
Court’s recent Arias decision as a framework. Case cited: People v. Arias
(2008 DJDAR 16617)(11/7/08). (5:54)

Handcuffing During Detention: Proceed With Caution
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
Officers may not handcuff a detainee (even one suspected of involvement in
narcotics) based solely on the fact there is a height differential between the
officer and the detainee where there are less intrusive methods (i.e., a
patsearch) available to the officer to carry out the detention. Case cited:
People v. Stier (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 21. (12:40)

Search & Seizure: Outstanding Warrant Discovered After Illegal Stop
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, Orange County, CA
Even if the initial detention of a suspect is without reasonable suspicion,
discovery that the suspect has an outstanding arrest warrant may
nevertheless justify a search incident to arrest on that warrant. Cases cited:
Brendlin v. California (2007) 127 S. Ct. 2400; People v. Sims (1993) 5 C4
405; People v. Sanders (2003) 31 C4 318. (9:11)

Frisks Based on Flight in Gang Stronghold
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
When an officer observes conduct giving rise to a reasonable suspicion an
individual is involved in criminal activity (such as headlong flight through
traffic) and that activity occurs in an area known for recent, violent gang
crime, these facts together go a long way toward permitting a patsearch of
that individual. Case cited: In re H.M. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 136. (6:13)

Unclear Miranda Invocations
with William W. Bedsworth, Appellate Court Justice, State of California
Ricky Sechrest was investigated simultaneously by the Reno P.D. for murder
and the Sparks, Nevada P.D. for grand larceny. He agreed to talk to the
Sparks police, and when they finished, Reno asked to talk to him. He said
he’d like to talk to the Reno police, but he had talked to his attorney and
been told to keep his mouth shut. Was that an invocation of his Miranda
rights? How about when he said, “You ask some questions and if I want to
answer them I will and if I don’t, I won’t.” Was that a waiver? Justice
Bedsworth explains what the proper procedure is under these circumstances.
Case cited: Sechrest v. Ignacio (2008) 549 F3d 789. (6:45)

Vehicle Search Incident to Arrest and More
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
Discusses a case holding that a search of a suspect’s vehicle could not be
justified either as a search incident to arrest or inventory search where the
suspect was only detained after he exited the vehicle and began crossing
yards to get to his home (which was two houses away) and the search
occurred “well after” defendant was arrested a block and half away from the
vehicle. Other issues raised in the case are also discussed. Cases/Statutes
cited: United States v. Caseres (9th Cir. 2008) 533 F.3d 1064; Veh. Code §§
22108, 26708. (18:48)