No Questions, No Miranda
with William W. Bedsworth, Appellate Court Justice, State of California
The Miranda decision requires that all suspects in a custodial situation (arrest
or its equivalent) must be advised of their rights before interrogation. The
general rule is that it takes custody plus interrogation or the threat of
interrogation to trigger Miranda requirements. Justice Bedsworth discusses
what happens when a suspect tries to assert his Miranda rights before anyone
seeks to question him. Case cited: People v. Buskirk (2009) 175 CA 4th
1436. (6:41)

What Is "False" Material Under PC 134?
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
Penal Code section 134 makes it unlawful to prepare any “false” matter or
thing, with the intent to produce it, or allow it to be produced for any
fraudulent or deceitful purpose, as genuine or true, in a trial or other
proceeding. If a suspect takes a photo of one intersection but offers it into
evidence in a traffic citation trial as a photo of a different intersection, the
photo will be deemed “false. Case/statute cited: People v. Bamberg (2009)
175 Cal.App.4th 618; Pen. Code § 134. (12:51)

Exigent Circumstances: Missing Persons
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, Orange County, CA
During a missing persons investigation, probable cause to believe they may
be found at a particular location and that immediate action must be taken to
protect them may provide exigent circumstances to enter without a warrant.
Cased cited: People v. Wharton (1991) 53 C3d 522; People v. Lucero (1988)
44 C3d 1006; People v. Rogers (2009) 46 C4th 1136. (7:43).

Can Entry Into a Carport Be a Residential Burglary?
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
Burglary of an inhabited dwelling is a first-degree residential burglary. Entry
into an open carport with private parking stalls that serves as the bottom
floor of an apartment building and is accessed via communal stairways
adjacent to the carport qualifies as a residential burglary. Case/statute cited:
People v. Thorn 2009 WL 2344585; Pen. Code § 459-1st. (10:09)

Search on a Military Base
with William W. Bedsworth, Appellate Court Justice, State of Californi
The Uniform Code of Military Justice, including the Military Rules of
Evidence, includes provisions for a search conducted pursuant to the
authorization of the base commanding officer. In Jasmin, the defendant
challenged the admissibility of evidence obtained in a search authorized by
the base commander, insisting a warrant was necessary. Justice Bedsworth
explains why he lost and explains a very important point of law– especially
for departments with military installation in or near their jurisdictions. Case
cited: People v. Jasmin (2008) 167 Cal. App. 4th 98. (6:44)

Refusal to Consent Doesn't Justify Frisk
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
An officer does not have reasonable suspicion to frisk a suspect based solely
on the fact that the suspect refused to consent to a search– even where the
manner of the refusal is unusual. Case cited: In re H.H. (2009) 174
Cal.App.4th 653. (6:35)