Southern California Defense Blog

The California appellate court has held that even though a vehicle does in fact have a temporary operating permit displayed somewhere on the vehicle, if the police officer does not see the temporary operating permit, and the vehicle does not have license plates, then the stop of the vehicle is legal. People v. Dotson ﴾3rd Dist., Nov. 30, 2009﴿ 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1904﴿.

In Dotson, the defendant, a convicted felon, was found to be in possession of a firearm, ammunition, and methamphetamine when a police officer stopped his vehicle. Although the vehicle had a temporary operating permit, an arresting officer had testified that at the time of the stop he saw that defendant's vehicle did not have license plates. In fact, in a dimly lit parking lot, the officer had a hard time identifying even the color of the vehicle. He saw that there were no license plates, so he made the stop. The defendant argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop since the defendant’s car had a temporary operating permit attached to the rear window.

Continue reading "Police Can Legally Stop a Vehicle in California Even If a Temporary Operating Permit Attached To a Rear Window " »

In general, police must have a warrant before entering a residence. Of course, certain exceptions apply to the general rule which requires a warrant before entry. One such exception is known as the, "emergency exception." The emergency exception is often used by police and prosecutors to justify a warrantless entry. Hiring a Riverside criminal defense attorney who can identify all constitutional violations by the police may mean the difference between jail and freedom in your case.

The emergency exception contains three elements, as follows:

1. Police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property


2. The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence


3. There must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched United States v. Martinez (2005) 406 F.3d 1160.

Continue reading "Police Entry into Residence Without a Warrant - What is the "Emergency Exception" to the Warrant Requirement? (Part 2)" »

Several recent Court rulings have addressed the issue of consent entry into one's residence. The issue of lawful consent becomes more complex when dealing with a residence shared by two occupants. In Georgia v. Randolph (2006) 164 L Ed.2d 208, the court held that if two occupants are at the door and one says officers may enter and the other refuses consent to enter, then officers cannot enter unless there is some other basis for doing so.

Whenever dealing with law enforcement entry into the home, it is necessary to consult an experienced Orange County criminal defense attorney who can advise you of your constitutional rights. Fourth Amendment search and seizure violations are very common and highly relevant to the outcome your case. Identifying any and all constitutional violations may mean the difference between jail and freedom.

Continue reading "You Have Legal Rights When You Share a Residence and Refuse Police Officers Request to Search Your Home or Apartment (Part 1)" »

The concepts of "independent source" and "inevitable discovery" may serve to allow the introduction of illegally seized items into evidence. The prosecution must be able to show that the items discovered would have been inevitably discovered regardless of the illegal search or seizure.

The prosecution will try and introduce and independent source or means, satisfying the doctrine and avoiding the protections of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.

Continue reading "Legality Of Stop And Search Of A Vehicle (Part 3)" »

It is the prosecution’s burden to justify a warrantless search or seizure. People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 119. The defendant has the right to suppress evidence when the evidence is obtained by an illegal detention, arrest, or search in violation of both the United States Constitution and Cal Pen. Code section 1538.5.

In addition, the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment prohibits the admission of evidence obtained as a result of an unconstitutional search and seizure. Wong Sun v. United States (1963) 371 U.S. 471.

An experienced California criminal defense attorney will be able to tell you whether your encounter with police will be deemed a "seizure" triggering Fourth Amendment protections.

Continue reading "Prosecution's Burden to Justify a Warrantless Search or Seizure" »

In some situations, a search may be found reasonable despite the lack of a warrant. However, to establish the presence of emergency or "exigent" circumstances, there must be a showing of necessity. People v. Sutton (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 341, 351. Specifically, at the time the warrantless entry is made, there must be an “imminent and substantial threat to life, health, or property.” Id. at 350.

Whether the requisite exigency is present to justify a warrantless entry into a home will depend on the surrounding circumstances. Courts tend to focus on apparent threats to safety and property, and the immanency of those threats. If you feel that your legal rights may have been violated you should immediately consult with a California criminal defense law firm that can help you win your case.

Continue reading "Exigent Circumstances May Justify a Warrantless Entry into One's Home" »

In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the defendant was convicted of drug possession. 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009). The conviction went all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s drug conviction because the trial court violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights.

In Melendez, the trial court admitted the prosecutions certificates by laboratory analysts, stating that the material seized by police and connected to the defendant was cocaine of a certain quantity. When the trial court admitted the certificates, this prohibited the defense from being able to cross-examine the laboratory analysts who created the certificates. Because the defense was not able to cross-examine the witness on their procedures and policies, this violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.

Continue reading "New Court Ruling Results in Drug Conviction Reversal: The Criminally Accused Have a Right to Confront the Witnesses Against Them - Part I " »

Depending upon the facts of your case, your confession and/or admission may be inadmissible if the statements were the product of an illegal search. However, the defendant must show a relationship between the unlawful search and the defendant’s statement.

Once this has been established, the burden of proof shifts to the Prosecution to show that the confession or admission was the product of an intervening independent act of the defendant’s free will.

Like many Constitutional issues, a fact intensive analysis is required.

Continue reading "Confessions and Admissions that are Product of Illegal Search are Subject to Suppression in Court" »

An officer with probable cause to search is not prevented from doing so by someone presenting a medical marijuana card or a medical marijuana prescription.

Various courts have held that, once the officer has probable cause, the officer is entitled to continue to search and investigate, and determine whether the subject of the investigation is in fact possessing the marijuana for personal medical needs, and is adhering to the eight-ounce limit on possession.

Continue reading "Medical Marijuana Card Does Not Necessarily Protect Against Vehicle Search" »

The United States Supreme Court case of South Dakota v. Operman, 427 US 364 (1976) set for the following criteria for the lawful impound and inventory of a vehicle:

1. The vehicle must be lawfully in police custody. For example, following a traffic stop or lawful arrest of a driver.


2. The inventory must be for the purpose of listing the contents of the vehicle and not for an investigative purpose.


3. The impound and inventory must be pursuant to a standard policy of the police department involved. Meaning, the impound and inventory cannot be left wholly to the discretion of the officer seeking to conduct the impound and inventory.

Continue reading "Impound and Inventory of a Vehicle (Part 2)" »

Generally, a police officer can seize any vehicle they have probable cause to believe contains illegal items or evidence of a crime. Once the vehicle has been "seized," police can then conduct a search at a police facility or impound lot. The California Vehicle Code details when a car can and cannot be impounded.

If contraband or evidence of a crime is discovered during the course of a lawful inventory search, that evidence will be admissible in court against you.

Continue reading "Impound and Inventory of a Vehicle (Part 1)" »

Numerous Court of Appeal cases have approved the police practice of “knock and talk” based entirely on an anonymous and uncorroborated tip. Recently, the California Supreme Court stated, “even if acting on an anonymous tip, police may knock on the door of a residence, speak with the occupant, and request permission to enter and search” People v. Rivera, 41 Cal.4th 304 (2007).

An aggressive and experienced Orange County criminal defense attorney may be able to argue that such conduct on the part of the police violated your Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. An argument can be made that the sanctity of the home is threatened when police approach a residence, knock on the door, and converse with a homeowner in an effort to obtain consent to search.

Continue reading "Can Police Knock On My Front Door When Acting Solely On an Anonymous and Uncorroborated Tip?" »

An Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Will Protect Your Right from a Warrantless Search of Your Home

Any person can call law enforcement and complain to tell them that a person is drinking and driving. If a complaint names the suspected drunk driver, law enforcement may be able to go the house of the named suspect and lawfully search the home without a warrant.

Some courts have held that these searches are lawful while other courts have held that these searches violate a person’s rights and are therefore illegal. Either way however, courts agree that an important factor to consider in determining whether the search was legal or not was whether “exigency” exists. Exigency exists when law enforcement fear that evidence may be destroyed, thus law enforcement can search without a warrant to prevent the evidence from being destroyed.

In the context of a DUI investigation, the police and prosecutors will argue that an entry into a home, even without a warrant, was necessary to preserve evidence of blood alcohol content. For example, law enforcement would argue that a warrantless entry was necessary to preserve the bottle of alcohol the suspect possibly drank from. However, this argument alone is rarely sufficient to justify a warrantless entry into a home.

Continue reading "A Drinking and Driving Complaint May Give Rise to a Warrantless Search of Your Home" »

An Experienced Criminal Defense Firm will Expose a Lack of Reliability from an Anonymous Informant

An anonymous tip, standing alone, seldom will exhibit sufficient indicia of reliability to support reasonable suspicion for an investigatory or traffic stop. An informant who provides information face-to-face to law enforcement is not considered the same as an anonymous tipster. See United States v. Romain, 393 F.3d, 63 (2004).

Officers do not have the same duty to confirm the citizen informant's information before acting on it. When information is provided to law enforcement from an anonymous tipster, police officers do not have the opportunity to evaluate personally an informant's expression, tone of voice, and mannerisms.

Continue reading "Officer's Have Heightened Duty to Confirm an Anonymous Tipster's Information" »

An Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney Knows How to Effectively Rebut this Presumption

As discussed in the blog yesterday, a person who tips officers to suspected criminal conduct is called an “informant.” A citizen informant generally gains knowledge of an alleged criminal offense by being either a witness or a victim. A citizen informant is deemed to be reliable, unless this presumption of reliability is rebutted.

Courts have held that a citizen informant providing information to law enforcement generally has a strong basis of knowledge and there is little concern for the motives behind volunteering the information. However, information provided by an informant is often inaccurate and uncorroborated. For this reason, hiring a knowledgeable and experienced criminal defense attorney is paramount.

Continue reading "Courts Give a Presumption of "Reasonable Suspicion" Established from a Citizen Informant's Statements" »

Why You Need a Criminal Defense Attorney Who Knows Search and Seizure Laws

In order to conduct a legal traffic stop, an officer must have what is called “reasonable suspicion” to stop the car. Often, officers will rely on a tip they received from someone who may know the suspect, one who may have seen the suspect engage in an illegal activity, or a person with a hunch to create the requisite reasonable suspicion. A person who tips officers to suspected criminal conduct is called an “informant.”

In order to use an informant to build reasonable suspicion, the officer must consider the reliability of the information. In United States v. Leos-Quijada, 107 F.3d 786 (10th Cir. 1997), the court stated that when information comes from an informant, reliability may be assessed by viewing the credibility of the informant, the basis of the informant's knowledge, and the extent to which the police are able to independently verify the tip.

The lower the reliability, credibility, or veracity of the informant, the more information that is required to create reasonable suspicion. Often times, in a California DUI case, the arresting officer is unable to sufficiently verify the basis for the information, or the reliability of the informant.

Continue reading "A Traffic Stop Based on an Anonymous Informant's Tip Must Be Reliable to be a Legal Stop" »