Arresting Foreign Nationals
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
Penal Code §834c requires that any time a known or suspected foreign national
is arrested or detained for more than two hours, he/she must be advised of the
right to speak to an official from the consulate of his or her country. If the
arrestee chooses to exercise that right, the police must notify the consulate and
“ensure that the arrestee is allowed to communicate with, correspond with, and
be visited by a consular officer of his or her country.” And 56 countries require
notification even if their foreign national requests that they not be notified.
Justice Bedsworth discusses the statute and how to comply with it. Statutes cited:
Penal Code §834c. (7:00)

The Latest on "Medical Marijuana"
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
The United States Supreme Court has held that even where a person cultivates
and possesses marijuana solely in California for his or her own personal medical
use, such cultivation and possession still remains illegal under federal law. The
video also covers the latest information on the return or destruction of “medical”
marijuana seized by local law enforcement. Case/Statutes cited: Gonzales v.
Raich (2005) 125 S.Ct. 2195; People v. Frazier (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 807;
Chavez v. Superior Court (2004)123 Cal.App.4th 104; Health & Saf. Code, §§
11362.5-11362.83. (9:00)

Vehicle Stops: Information-Seeking Checkpoints
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
Police may lawfully establish “information-seeking” checkpoints to contact
vehicles in an effort to obtain information to assist in a criminal investigation.
Cases/Statutes cited: United States v. Martinez (1976) 428 U.S. 543; Michigan
State Police v. Sitz (1990) 496 U.S. 444; Indianapolis v. Edmonds (2000) 531
U.S. 32; Illinois v. Lister (2004) 540 U.S. 419. (7:13)

Threshold Arrests
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Although the general rule is that police may not enter a residence to make a
warrantless arrest, there is an exception made if the person is at the threshold of
the door, or voluntarily opens the door and appears at the threshold. This video
discusses when the exception does or does not apply. Cases/Statutes cited: United
States v. Quaempts (9th Cir. 2005) DJDAR 6248; Payton v. New York (1980) 445
U.S. 573; United States v. Santana (1976) 427 U.S. 38; United States v.
Vaneaton (9th Cir. 1995) 49 F.3d 1423. (7:01)

Plain Sight: Is Plain Shape Enough?
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
A doctrine closely related to the concept that seizing what is in plain sight does
not violate the Fourth Amendment is what has been known as the “plain shape
rule.” Essentially, the courts have held that there is no legitimate expectation of
privacy in a container whose SHAPE discloses its contents. The Ninth Circuit,
however, has imposed an interesting restriction on this rule that police need to
know about. Cases/Statutes cited: United States v. Gust 405 F3d 797 (9th Cir.
2005). (7:52)

Section 11383 Requires Personal Intent to Manufacture
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
To prove a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11383, it is not enough to
show the suspect in possession of the chemicals knew they were going to be used
in the manufacture of methamphetamine by someone else. It must be shown the
suspect possessing the chemicals personally intended to participate in the
manufacture of methamphetamine. Case/Statute cited: People v. Perez 2005
DJDAR 6457; Health & Saf. Code, § 11383. (7:55)