Search & Seizure: Expectation of Privacy in Room Obtained by Fraud
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
Persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their hotel room.
However, if the room is obtained by fraud, that expectation is no longer
reasonable. Cases cited: U.S. v. Cunag- (2004) 12422; Rakas v. Illinois
(1978) 439 U.S. 128. (8:46)

Seizing Incriminating Evidence During Frisk
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Under the “plain-feel” doctrine, an officer may seize an item during a frisk
that the officer immediately recognizes as being of an incriminating character
–even if the item is not a weapon or contraband. However, there must be
probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime at the moment of
the search. Cases cited: In re Lennies H. (2005) 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 13;
Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) 508 U.S. 366. (11:00)

CVC §2800-2(a): Felony Evasion
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
California Vehicle Code §2800-2(a) criminalizes evasion of a pursuing police
officer with “willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property.”
Section (b) of that statute provides that proof of three or more “one-point”
violations constitutes willful or wanton disregard for safety. Justice Bedsworth
examines the statute in the light of Diaz, which sets out an interesting
limitation or what constitutes a one-point violation for purposes of this law.
Case cited: People v. Diaz (2005 DJDAR 1033)(January 28, 2005). (6:35)

The Official Channels/Collective Information Rule
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Officers may reasonably rely on information received from other members of
law enforcement in making detentions, arrests, and searches. However, this
does not mean officers may justify actions based on information known to
other members of law enforcement which have not been communicated. This
video explores the difference between these two concepts. (4:58)

Knock-Notice: Do You Have to "Knock"?
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
The four key elements to the “Knock-notice” rule are: 1) Announce your
presence, 2) Advise occupants of your purpose, 3) Request/demand entry,
and 4) Give occupants sufficient time to respond before forcing entry. Cases
cited: U.S. v. Combs (2005) DAR 349; U.S. v. Spikes (1998) 158 F3d 925.
(8:05)

Detaining and Questioning Occupants While Executing Warrant
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Police serving a warrant for deadly weapons and evidence of gang
membership may detain occupants in handcuffs; no additional reasonable
suspicion the occupants are dangerous or are involved in criminal activity is
required. The occupants may be asked questions about their identity,
including their immigration status, as a matter of course. Cases cited:
Muehler v. Mena (2005) DJDAR 3332; Michigan v. Summer (1981) 452 U.S.
692. (9:51)