Mobile Tracking Devices
with William W. Bedsworth, Appellate Court Justice, State of California
In this case, federal agents used a tracking device to keep tabs on a suspected
marijuana grower. When they finally busted him, he complained that the use
of such devices was illegal and that even if they were legal, attachment of such
a device, while it was parked in his driveway, was illegal. Justice Bedsworth
explains why both arguments failed and what the status of California law is
with regard to such devices. Case cited: United States v. Pineda-Moreno
(2010) DJDAR 474. (7:54)

Ambiguous and Conditional Invocations of Miranda Rights
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
The rule that police may continue interrogating a suspect who ambiguously
invokes his right to counsel applies equally to a suspect who ambiguously
invokes his right to silence. Also, an invocation of the right to counsel will be
deemed ambiguous if it contingent upon an event that has not occurred. Case
cited: People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911. (12:51)

Search and Seizure: In-Person Anonymous Tips
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, Orange County, CA
Tips regarding possible criminal activity are generally more reliable if they are
given in-person to law enforcement. Cases cited: Adams v. Williams (1972)
407 U.S. 143; Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266; U.S. v. Marquez (2010)
DAR 884. (6:42).

Temporary Deactivation of Lights/Siren During 2800.2 Pursuit
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
Neither Vehicle Code section 2800.1 or 2800.2 requires the pursuing officer to
keep his emergency lights and siren continuously activated during the entire
course of the pursuit. A temporary deactivation during a brief period when the
officer loses sight of the offender is permissible. Cases/Statutes cited: People
v. Copass (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 37; Veh. Code §§ 2800.1, 2800.2. (6:28)

Pitchess Motions: A "Plausible Scenario"
with William W. Bedsworth, Appellate Court Justice, State of California
In order to force a court to review an officer’s personnel file for possibly
discoverable material (Pitchess motion) the defendant must provide a
“plausible scenario” of the charged offense that would make the materials
relevant. Describes Sanderson and explains why the court did not agree to
review the officer’s personnel file. Officers should know their personnel files
are not examined every time a defendant accuses them of lying. Case cited:
People v. Sanderson (2010) DAR 2272 (February 11, 2010). (7:05)

Edwards Rule Subject to "Break in Custody" Exception
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
The Edwards rule prohibits any law enforcement officer from attempting to
interview a suspect about any crime outside the presence of counsel after the
suspect has invoked his right to counsel during a custodial interrogation unless
the suspect initiates the contact. It does not bar re-contacting the suspect for
purpose of interrogation after the suspect has been released from custody for
14 days. Moreover, a suspect who is incarcerated as a result of having been
convicted of a crime is not “in custody” for purposes of the Edwards rule. Cases
cited: Maryland v. Shatzer 2010 DJDAR 2731; Edwards v. Arizona (1981) 451
U.S. 477; Arizona v. Roberson (1988) 486 U.S. 675; Minnick v. Mississippi
(1990) 498 U.S. 146. (21:19)