Miranda: Coerced Waivers
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, Orange County, CA
Police are not required to begin questioning “immediately” after a Miranda
advisement, and questioning at some period of time after the advisement will
not render the interview coerced. Cases cited: Moran v. Burbine (1986) 475
U.S. 412; Missouri v. Seibert (2004) 542 U.S. 600; People v. Rios (2009) DAR
16280. (6:19)

"Protective Searches" During In-Home Arrests
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
Under Maryland v. Bui, during the arrest of a suspect in his home, police may,
without suspicion, do a limited search of the area immediately adjacent to the
location of an arrest from which an attack could be launched. This type of
search is distinct from the more expansive search, also authorized by Bui, that
is commonly referred to as a “protective sweep.” In Lemus, officers were
entitled to conduct a protective search of the arrestee’s living room where the
arrestee was arrested just as he got halfway through a sliding glass door
leading to the living room. Cases cited: Maryland v. Bui (1990) 494 U.S.
325; U.S. v. Lemus (9th Cir. 2009) 582 F.3d 958. (10:15)

Testimony by Dead Witnesses
with William W. Bedsworth, Appellate Court Justice, State of California
There are two ways a court can receive statements of dead witnesses: 1) a
dying declaration (something a person says when he/she knows he/she is
about to die is constituted trustworthy and allowed into evidence), and
perhaps more important, 2) the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” exception to the
hearsay rule, which provides that if a witness is unavailable because of
wrongdoing by the defendant, his hearsay statements can be introduced.
Justice Bedsworth explains how this very important rule resulted in a murder
conviction in the Banos case. Case cited: (2009) 178 CA 4th 483. (7:48).

The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine and Inventory Searches
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
In Arizona v. Gant, the Supreme Court held a search of the passenger
compartment incident to an arrest of a recent occupant (i.e., a “Belton”
search), is limited to situations where 1) the arrestee is unsecured and within
reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search, or
2) it is reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be
found in the vehicle. However, evidence found during a search of a vehicle
held improper under Gant may still be admissible if it can be shown the
vehicle was going to be lawfully impounded and that the evidence would
inevitably have been discovered during an inventory search. Cases cited:
Arizona v. Gant (2009) 129 S.Ct. 1710; United States v. Ruckes (9th Cir.
2009) 586 F.3d 713. (9:14)

Search and Seizure: "Objective" Exigent Circumstances
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, Orange County, CA
Police will have justification to enter a residence without a warrant if they
have an “objectively” reasonable basis for believing that a person inside is in
need of immediate aid. Case cited: Michigan v. Fisher (2009) 558 U.S. (5:58)

Carrying a Switchblade Unlawful Even at Home
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
A person violates Penal Code section 653, which prohibits, among other
things, the carrying of a switchblade on the person, even if the switchblade is
not carried in a public place or place open to the public. Case/Statute cited: In
re S.C. 2009 WL 4023737; Pen. Code §653k. (3:57)