Miranda: Reinitiation By Suspect
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, Orange County, CA
After a suspect has invoked Miranda, he may reinitiate a dialogue with police
by words or conduct indicating a desire on his part to open in a discussion
related directly or indirectly to the investigation. Cases cited: Edwards v.
Arizona (1981) 451 U.S. 477; People v. Mickey (1991) 54 C3d 612; Oregon
v. Bradshaw (1983) 462 U.S. 1039; Wyrick v. Fields (1982) 459 U.S. 42;
People v. Bradford (1997) 15 C4th 1229; People v. Stephens (1990) 218 CA
3d 575; Patterson v. Illinois (1988) 487 U.S. 285; U.S. v. Jennings (2008)
DAR 1934. (7:08)
Belated Chimel Search Incident To Arrest
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
Officers may conduct a search of the area immediately within the grabbing
area of a suspect incident to the suspect’s arrest. However, once the suspect
has been taken from the scene and immobilized, officers may not return to
the area of the arrest a few minutes later and search what had been the
grabbing area unless, at the time the police do the belated search, the
location is not yet controlled. Case/statute cited: People v. Leal (2008) 160
Cal.App.4th 701; People v. Rege (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1584; Chimel v.
California (1969) 395 U.S. 752. (6:06)
Vehicle Code §5201
with William W. Bedsworth, Appellate Court Justice, State of California
Leonza Duncan was stopped because he had attached his rear license plate
upside down. After he was convicted of transporting meth, he complained on
appeal that he could not be stopped for violating V.C. §5201 because his
license plate was firmly attached, clearly visible, and completely legible. The
Court of Appeal disagreed. Justice Bedsworth explains what constitutes a
violation of Vehicle Code §5201. Case cited: People v. Duncan (2008)
DJDAR 3208. (5:01)
Unrelated Questioning During Detention
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
In assessing whether questioning unrelated to a traffic stop unconstitutionally
prolonged the stop, the fact the questions added a minute or so to the
minimum time in which the stop could otherwise be completed does not
mean the detention was unduly prolonged. Rather, the test is whether, under
the totality of the circumstances, the questioning was reasonable. Case cited:
United States v. Turvin (9th Cir. 2008) 517 F.3d 1097. (5:59)
“Lawfulness” of The Arrest
with Daniel McNerney, Superior Court Judge, Orange County, CA
Regardless of whether state law designates a particular offense as
“arrestable” or “citable”, if police arrest a suspect on a “citable” offense, the
legality of that arrest will be judged under federal standards of
reasonableness. Cases cited: Virginia v. Moore (2008) DAR 5716; California
v. Greenwood (1988) 486 U.S. 35. (7:23)
Initial Ambiguous Invocation of Miranda Rights
with Jeff Rubin, Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County, CA
Although an ambiguous invocation of the right to counsel or silence made
after a suspect has waived his Miranda rights will not be deemed a valid
invocation and police may continue an interrogation without clarifying the
ambiguity, the rule is different when the ambiguous invocation is initially
made in response to the Miranda admonition. Cases cited: United States v.
Rodriguez (9th Cir. 2008) 518 F.3d 1072; Davis v. United States (1994) 512
U.S. 452. (10:22)
|
