Vehicle Stops: Is the Passenger Also Detained?
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
In this case, the California Supreme Court holds that the passenger in a
vehicle stopped by police is not necessarily detained unless the officer takes
additional action with the passenger to indicate that he is also a subject of the
investigation of the officer’s authority. Case cited: People v. Brendlin (2006)
38 C4th 1107. (7:22)

Post-Arrest Parole/Probation Searches
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
A parole search may be conducted, even after the parolee has been
incarcerated on a parole hold, up until the time the parolee’s parole is
formally revoked. The rule is the same when it comes to probationers. Case
cited: People v. Hunter (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1147. (6:41)

Conducting a Consent Search
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
A consent search is always limited by the purpose –if any is expressed– for
which the search is granted. Consent can be withdrawn at any time during
the search, in which case, the search must be immediately terminated. But in
this case, a consent search was invalidated not because consent was
withdrawn, but because the police put the person who gave consent in a
situation in which he could not effectively exercise his right to withdraw
consent. Case cited: United States v. McWeeney (2006) DJDAR 9551 (July
24, 2006) (6:08)

Tainted Statements
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Generally, if police obtain an involuntary statement from a suspect,
statements made after the involuntary statement will be presumed to be
tainted by the first statement and thus also suppressible. This rule can hold
true even if the second statement is made to a private individual. However,
if there is an intervening act that breaks the connection between the first and
second statement (such as when the suspect initiates a request to speak to a
family member on his own), the second statement may be admissible. Cases
cited: People v. Hogan (1982) 31 Cal.3d 815; People v. Terrell (2006) 141
Cal.App.4th 1371. (7:17)

P.C. to Arrest: The Case of the Missing Oscars
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
Discusses two issues: warrantless arrest of a suspect at his residence, and
probable cause to arrest based on hearsay. Cases cited: Hart v. Parks (2006)
DAR 7693; Payton v. New York (1980) 445 U.S. 573; U.S. v. Alazzawy
(1985) 784 F2d 890. (8:21)

Searching Workplace Computers
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
A suspect has no expectation of privacy in a workplace computer (i.e., the
suspect cannot challenge the search of the computer) where the company
gives the police permission to search the computer and the company’s
computer policy included routine monitoring, a right of access to the
computer by other employees, and a prohibition against private use by its
employees. Case cited: United States v. Ziegler (9th Cir. 2006) 456 F.3d
1138. (9:14)