Miranda: Re-Advisement After Break in Interrogation
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
Re-advisement of Miranda rights are generally not required when
interrogation is renewed after break or recess. Cases cited: Guam v. Dela
Pena (1995) 72 F3d 767; U.S. v. Andraverde (1995) 64 F3d 1305; Puplampu
v. U.S. (1970) 442 F2d 870; U.S. v. Rodriguez (2005) DAR 2624. (6:48)

Killing Dogs During Service of Warrant
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Officers violated the Fourth Amendment by killing homeowners’ dogs during
the service of a warrant where the officers knew dogs would be present long
before service of the warrant and inadequate plans were made for dealing
with the dogs in advance. Case cited: San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels
Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose (2005) 402 F.3d 962. (11:38)

Search and Seizure: Expectation of Privacy in Property By Fraud or Theft
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
Although criminals may harbor an expectation of privacy in property obtained
by theft or fraud, such expectation is not “reasonable.” Cases cited: Smith v.
Maryland (1979) 442 U.S. 735; Rakas v. Illinois (1978) 439 U.S. 128; U.S. v.
Cunag (2004) 386 F3d 888; U.S. v. Caymen (2005) 404 F3d 1196. (6:40)

Warrantless Searches of Commercial Businesses
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Although searches of commercial businesses generally require a warrant,
there are two exceptions: the “open to the public” exception and the “closely
regulated industry” exception (aka the “administrative search” exception).
This video focuses on a recent case involving a search done pursuant to
Vehicle Code section 2805 in order to illustrate the differences between these
exceptions. Cases/Statutes cited: People v. Potter (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th
611; People v. Roman (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 674; People v. Calvert (1993)
18 Cal.App.4th 1820; Veh. Code, § 2805. (8:58)

Miranda: Unambiguous Invocation
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
A suspect who invokes his/her Miranda right to silence or counsel must do so
in a “clear and unambiguous” manner. Cases cited: U.S. v. Davis (1994) 512
U.S. 452; People v. Wash (1993) 6 CA4 215; In re Joe R. (1980) 27 C3d
1213; People v. Stitley (2005) 35 C4th 514; People v. Turnage (1975) 45 CA
3d 237. (8:52)

Emergency Entry to Investigate Domestic Violence
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Officers may enter a home under the “emergency exception” where they
have reasonable grounds to believe an emergency is at hand, their
immediate help is needed to protect life or property, the officers’ intent is
primarily motivated by the emergency, and there is probable cause to believe
the place entered is associated with the emergency. The exception was held
to apply where police responded to an interrupted 911 call regarding an “outof-
control male" at a home where domestic violence had previously occurred,
a female was outside crying but not injured, and somebody was yelling inside
the house. Case cited: United States v. Martinez (9th Cir. 2005) DJDAR 5611.
(6:53)