Keeping Your Surveillance Location Secret
with William W. Bedsworth, Appellate Court Justice, State of California
Evidence Code §§1040-1042 provides a privilege to police to withhold from
the defense certain information that would be “against the public interest
because there is a necessity for preserving its confidentiality.” Justice
Bedsworth discusses a case in which police were allowed to refuse to divulge
the location of their surveillance. This is the exception to the rule, but can be
done under the right circumstances, and it’s important that you know how to
create those circumstances. Case cited: People v. Lewis (2009) 172 Cal App 4th
1426. (7:28)

Post-Arraignment Contacts with Suspects - Jackson Overruled
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
Regardless of whether a suspect has requested or been appointed counsel at
an arraignment or similar hearing, police may contact and interview a suspect
so long as the interview follows a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver
by the suspect of his right to counsel and the suspect has not earlier invoked
his right to counsel during a prior custodial interrogation. The U.S. Supreme
Court discarded its earlier holding in Michigan v. Jackson that police are
prohibited from even seeking a waiver of the right to counsel from a suspect
once he or she requested counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding.
Cases cited: Montejo v. Louisiana (2009) 129 S.Ct. 2079; Michigan v. Jackson
(1986) 475 U.S. 625; Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477. (11:23)

Search Warrants: Statement of Probable Cause
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, Orange County, CA
The case of Johnson v. Walton discusses the importance of including all
important information into a search warrant affidavit, including the affiant’s
training and experience, and the reasonable inferences which support probably
cause. Cases cited: Johnson v. Walton (2009) DAR 3863; U.S. v. Leon (1984)
468 U.S. 897. (11:30)

"Custody" for Miranda Purposes: In-Home Interrogation
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
The Ninth Circuit held a suspect was in custody for Miranda purposes, even
though the suspect was interviewed in his home for just a couple of minutes,
where: (1) police were both inside and outside the suspect’s home serving a
warrant when the suspect arrived; (2) the suspect was commanded to enter his
house to speak with a detective; (3) the suspect was immediately confronted
about child pornography found in his house; and (4) the suspect was never
told he was not under arrest. Thus the suspect’s statement had to be
suppressed because it was not preceded by Miranda warnings but a subsequent
Mirandized statement was still admissible since the first statement was not
coerced or the result of improper police tactics. Case cited: United States v.
Brobst (2009) 558 F.3d 982. (11:02)

Miranda: The Benefits of Recording
with William W. Bedsworth, Appellate Court Justice, State of California
This segment focuses on the benefits of recording a suspect interview, including
preservation of evidence that the statement was voluntary. Case cited: People
v. Dykes (2009) 46 C4 731. (8:23)

Suspect's Lies Save Otherwise Unlawful Probation Search
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
A suspect who lies about his identity so that an officer is misled about whether
the suspect has a probation search clause will be stopped from challenging a
search by that officer on the ground the officer was unaware of the search
clause before conducting the search. Cases cited: People v. Watkins (2009)
170 Cal.App.4th 1403; Myers v. Superior Court (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1247.
(10:32)