Miranda: Anticipatory Invocation
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
An arrestee’s expression regarding his right to silence or counsel is not a
valid invocation of Miranda unless it is made at the time and location where
interrogation is to occur. Cases cited: People v. Nguyen (2005) 132 CA4th
350; Rhode Island v. Innis (1980) 446 U.S. 291, McNeil v. Wisconsin (1991)
501 U.S. 171. (8:10)

Detaining Suspects for Urinating in Public
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Urinating on or near a commercial street in a populated area constitutes a
public nuisance in violation of Penal Code section 370. Discusses what
statutes do or do not apply to an act of public urination and the
circumstances that will or will not justify a detention for public urination.
Case and Statutes cited: People v. McDonald (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 521;
Pen. Code §§ 370, 372, 374, 375. (9:06)

Photo Show-Ups: Does Suspect "Stand Out?"
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
The six-pack photo show-up is a valuable law enforcement tool that, when
properly used, both solves crimes and assures convictions. But, as Justice
Bedsworth explains, it has to be carefully constructed. While the law in the
area can be complex, the justice provides a “rule of thumb” which can easily
be used by officers putting together a six-pack. Case cited: People v. Carlos
(2006) DJDAR 4710. (6:16)

Seizing Computers As Indicia During Search
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Officers coming across an open laptop computer during execution of a
warrant may seize it as evidence of dominion and control if the warrant
contains a general clause allowing for the seizure of “any evidence” tending
to show dominion and control. The computer may also be removed to the
station for the physical search of the computer to be conducted. Case cited:
People v. Balint (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 200. (6:46)

Search and Seizure: Weapons Screening Checkpoints
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
Once a person consents to proceed through a weapons screening checkpoint
and has begun the screening process, they may not withdraw their consent
and attempt to leave until security has “conclusively” determined that they
are not in possession of weapons. Cases cited: U.S. v. Davis (1973) 582 F2d
893; U.S. v. Aukai (2006) DAR 3227; Torbet v. United Airlines (2002) 298
F3d 1087. (8:05)

Anticipatory Warrants
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Anticipatory search warrants do not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as
the affidavit establishes that if the triggering condition occurs there is a fair
probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a
particular place-- and there is probable cause to believe the triggering
condition will occur. The face of the warrant need not include the “triggering
condition.” A description of the place to be searched and items to be seized is
sufficient. Officers do not have to present the owner with a copy of the
warrant before conducting the search. Case cited: United States v. Grubbs
(2006) 126 S.Ct. 1494. (7:32)