Automobile Repossession: Your Job?
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
The case of Meyers v. Rovetta describes the kind of ugly mess police are
called upon to sort out every day. It’s a 3 a.m. auto repossession that turns
into a free-for-all between the repo-man, the new mother who owns the car
and the elderly mother of the car owner. Everybody gets scratched, bruised,
and angry and then the cops are called to sort it all out. Justice Bedsworth
explains what police can and cannot do in an automobile repossession
situation. Case cited: Meyers v. Rovetta (2005 Daily Journal DAR 2923).
(9:12)

Exigent Circumstances Searches Where Child Missing
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
This video discusses the factors that went into upholding various searches
conducted by the police of a suspected child killer’s apartment and car under
the exigent circumstances exception. Entries based on implied and express
consent are also discussed. Case cited: People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th
395. (16:45)

Detention: Does Transporting to New Location Constitute An Arrest?
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
Officers may transport a detainee to a different location when reasonably
necessary to complete the purpose of the detention without elevating the
contact to an arrest. Cases cited: In re Carlos M. (1990) 220 CA3 372; Florida
v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491; Gallegos v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 308 F3d
987; U.S. v. Charley (2005) DAR 1455. (6:50)

Implied Miranda Waivers and Spontaneous Statements
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Although it is better to get an express waiver of Miranda rights, a valid waiver
may be implied where the suspect freely speaks with the officers after being
advised of his rights. Spontaneous statements made by a suspect in
response to police actions “normally attendant to arrest and custody,” such as
having the suspect identified, are admissible even absent a Miranda warning.
Case cited: United States v. Younger (9th Cir. 2005) 398 F.3d 1179. (7:35)

Search of Clothing in a Public Place
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
People v. Juan involves an unusual issue: Can an officer search clothing left
in a public place? This is not the type of thing that comes up a lot, but it
came up in Orange County just a few weeks ago, and Justice Bedsworth
discusses that case and People v. Juan in explaining that the answer is, “Yes,
you can search clothing left behind in a public place.” Case cited: People v.
Juan (1985) 175 Cal. App. 3d 1065. (6:31)

Overzealous Seizure of Indicia Can Be Unconstitutional
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Seizing motorcycles, a mailbox, a refrigerator door and a cement portion of a
driveway (necessitating significant property destruction) as indicia of gang
membership was an unreasonable seizure where numerous other items of
indicia had been seized and the evidence would only be used to support a
gang enhancement –even though the warrant allowed for the seizure of
“any” evidence of gang membership. Case cited: San Jose Charter of the
Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose (2005) 402 F.3d 962.
(9:26)