Pat-Downs: Baggy Clothing and Marijuana
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, Orange County, CA
Although a detainee’s baggy clothing alone will not justify a pat-down, it is
an important factor in establishing reasonable suspicion he is armed and
dangerous. Case cited: People v. Collier (2008) 166 CA4 1374. (8:46)

Dropped 911 Calls and Warrantless Home Entries
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
Provides some guidelines for officers in determining whether a warrantless
entry into a home following a 911 hang-up or open line call will be
permissible under an exigent circumstances or community caretaking theory.
As there is no California case directly dealing with the issue, the guidelines
are based on the presenter’s review of published decisions from other
jurisdictions. (10:31)

Penal Code §12303.2: Destructive Devices
with William W. Bedsworth, Appellate Court Justice, State of California
Penal Code §12303.2 prohibits reckless or malicious possession of a
destructive device on a public street or in a public building. Section 12301
defines a destructive device as, essentially, a breakable container holding a
flammable liquid with a flashpoint below 150 degrees Fahrenheit and a wick
(such as a Molotov cocktail). Justice Bedsworth discusses the statute and
explains why the defendant’s arguments failed in the Adams case. Case
cited: (2009) DJDAR 1313 (1/29/09). (5:01)

"Community-Caretaking" Detentions
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
An officer may, in certain circumstances, detain a person or vehicle for
“community caretaking” purposes. However, an officer may not do so based
solely on seeing a sweaty person stumble while walking to a car with an
unsteady gait where the car is being driven by someone else, the person
enters the car as a passenger, and there is no additional evidence the person
is in need of help. Cases cited: People v. Madrid (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th
1050; Cady v. Dombroski (1973) 413 U.S. 433; People v. Ray (1999) 21
Cal.4th 464. (8:47)

Search and Seizure: Consent-Once-Removed
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, Orange County, CA
If a suspect consents to an undercover officer’s entry of his residence, that
consent extends to other officers whose presence is not known to the suspect.
Cases cited: Lewis v. U.S. (1966) 385 U.S. 206; U.S. v. Bramble (1996) 103
F. 3d 1475; U.S. v. Jachimko (1994) 88 F. 3d 291; U.S. v. Yoon (2005) 546
U.S. 645; Pearson v. Callahan (2009) DAR 922. (9:33)

The Police Duty to Disclose Exculpatory Evidence
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
Officers may be subject to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil suit for failure to inform
the prosecutor of material information exculpating a suspect who they
investigated and who was charged with a crime based on that investigation -
even if the officers do not act in bad faith, the information comes to light
after trial, and the information has been placed in a police file potentially
accessible to the prosecutor. Cases cited: Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S.
83; Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco (9th Cir. 2008) 548 F.3d
1293. (12:34)