Constructive Possession: Do We Have a Case?
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
All possession statutes require proof that the defendant exercised “dominion
and control” of the item in question. That is our definition of possession –
not physical possession, but the exercise of dominion and control over the
item. This gets tricky when we’re talking about cases where the defendant
doesn’t have the object in his pocket. Justice Bedsworth uses United States v.
Young to provide a summary of how this constructive possession thing works.
Case cited: United States v. Young (2005) 420 F3d 915. (7:38)

Probable Cause Searches of Trunk
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
If police find drugs being transported in the passenger compartment of a
vehicle, this generally will provide probable cause to believe more illegal
drugs may be found in the trunk and allow for a search of the trunk under
the “vehicle search” exception. Cases cited: United States v. Ross (1982)
456 U.S. 798; People v. Hunter (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 371; People v. Dey
(2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1318. (12:14)

Miranda: More on Unequivocal Invocation of Right to Counsel
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, State of California
Suspect being advised of their Miranda rights will occasionally ask clarifying
questions regarding those rights. Such clarifying questions do not constitute a
“clear and unambiguous” invocation. Cases cited: People v. Stitley (2005)
35 C4 514; People v. Roquemore (2005) 131 CA4 11; People v. McMahon
(2005) 131 CA4 80; Davis v. United States (1994) 512 U.S. 452. (9:31)

Searching Abandoned Property
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
If an item is intentionally or accidentally left at the crime scene, it may be
deemed “abandoned” and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in
its contents and it may be searched with or without probable cause. This
video discusses the factors that go into determining when an item will be
deemed abandoned and focuses on a case where a cell phone was left at the
crime scene. Cases cited: People v. Daggs (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 361; In
re Baraka H. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1039. (11:33)

Deliberate Ignorance: Forget It
with William Bedsworth, Justice of the Court of Appeal, State of California
One of the most basic elements of any possession charge is that the
defendant knew he had contraband. There is, however, an exception to this
requirement. A possession charge can be supported by proof the defendant
thought it was probable he possessed contraband, but deliberately avoided
finding out so he could claim ignorance if charged. Cases cited: United
States v. Heredia (2005) DJDAR 12627; United States v. Jewell (9th Circuit,
1976) 532 F2d 697. (7:12)

Flight as "Willful Resistance" Under PC §148.10
with Jeff Rubin, Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Flight from an officer attempting a lawful detention or arrest constitutes
“willfully resisting” for purposes of the statute prohibiting willfully resisting a
peace officer in the discharge of his duties where such resistance proximately
cause serious bodily injury or death. Case/Statute cited: People v. Superior
Court (Ferguson) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1525; Pen. Code § 148.10.
(4:04)