Skip to content
Name: People v. Roberts
Case #: C081843
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/20/2021

California's DNA Act did not violate defendant's search and seizure rights or privacy rights under either the federal or state constitutions. A teenage girl's murder went unsolved until defendant's DNA was linked to certain items found at the scene. Defendant's DNA had been collected after an unrelated felony arrest made more than a year after the murder. Although that arrest was supported by probable cause, he was not formally charged in that matter. Based primarily on the DNA evidence, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder. On appeal, defendant argued that the use of his DNA sample violated…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Webb
Case #: D072981
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 01/31/2018

The trial court had no statutory authority to condition defendant's release on bail on a waiver of her Fourth Amendment rights. Webb was arrested and eventually charged with felony drug offenses. She was released on bail. At her arraignment, she pleaded not guilty to the charges. Over her objection, the trial court conditioned her release on a waiver of her Fourth Amendment rights. Her petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the condition was denied in the superior court. She refiled her petition in the Court of Appeal. Held: Petition granted. A defendant may correct an error in the setting…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Ricardo P.
Case #: A144149
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/22/2015
Subsequent History: Review granted 2/17/2016: S230923

Juvenile probation condition that permitted electronic searches of minor's cell phone and the electronic accounts accessible through the device was unconstitutionally overbroad. Ricardo admitted two felony counts of first degree burglary and the juvenile court declared him a ward and placed him on probation with numerous terms and conditions, including a condition that required him to submit his "electronics including passwords . . . to search." Ricardo objected to the condition but the juvenile court found that it was appropriate in light of the fact Ricardo admitted that he committed the offenses while under the influence of marijuana and minors…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Vukodinovich
Case #: C074871
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/29/2015

Statutes criminalizing sex acts with people who are incapable of giving legal consent due to developmental disability do not violate federal and state rights to privacy. Defendant was the bus driver for a nonprofit agency which provided jobs for individuals with disabilities. He drove the 49-year-old, developmentally disabled L. to her job. Over several years, he engaged in numerous sex acts with L. A jury convicted him of a number of sex offenses and he appealed. Held: Affirmed. It is a felony to engage in sexual acts with a person who is incapable of giving legal consent because of a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rebulloza
Case #: H040847
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/27/2015
Subsequent History: Review granted 6/10/2015: S225503

Probation condition requiring a sex offender to waive his privilege against self-incrimination (Pen. Code, § 1203.067, subd. (b)(3)) violates the Fifth Amendment. Rebulloza pled no contest to felony indecent exposure (Pen. Code, § 314, subd. (1)). He was granted a three-year term of probation. Rebulloza objected to two of the conditions of probation: (1) that he waive any privilege against self-incrimination and participate in polygraph examinations as part of a sex offender management program and (2) that he waive any psychotherapist-patient privilege to enable communication between the psychotherapist and the probation officer. The court overruled both objections and he appealed.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Buza
Case #: A125542
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 12/03/2014
Subsequent History: Review granted 2/18/2015: S223698

The provision of the DNA Act (Pen. Code, § 295 et seq.) that requires a DNA sample to be taken from all adults arrested for or charged with a felony offense is unconstitutional under article I, section 13 of the California Constitution. Buza was arrested after setting a police car on fire. While confined in county jail and prior to any appearance before a judge, he refused to provide a DNA sample as required by the DNA Act (Pen. Code, § 296.1, subd. (a)(1)(A), 296 subd. (a)(2)(C)). A jury convicted Buza of felony offenses related to the arson…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lowe
Case #: D059007
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/04/2013
Subsequent History: Review granted 3/19/2014: S215727

Mandatory taking of DNA samples without a warrant from persons arrested for felonies does not violate the Fourth Amendment. After Lowe's arrest for a felony offense, police took a buccal swab DNA sample from inside his cheek without a warrant. The collection and analysis of the sample was authorized by a 2004 amendment to Penal Code section 296 (Prop. 69), which mandates the taking of DNA samples upon arrest for a felony. The DNA sample connected Lowe to a number of unsolved offenses and a jury convicted him of multiple burglaries, sex crimes and robberies. He was sentenced to 107…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. King
Case #: 11-10182
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 08/01/2012

The Ninth Circuit overruled cases to the extent they hold there is no constitutional difference between probationers and parolees for Fourth Amendment purposes. The court overruled a number of cases with respect to their holdings there is no "constitutional difference between probation and parole for purposes of the Fourth Amendment" because they conflict with the Supreme Court's holding in Samson v. California (2006) 547 U.S. 843 (parolees have fewer expectations of privacy than …

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Leon
Case #: S137137
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 01/25/2007

Although California law in general prohibits wiretapping, Penal Code section 629.52 authorizes law enforcement officials to apply for a court order to intercept wire communications if there is probable cause to believe that (1) an individual has committed, is committing or will commit a listed crime; (2) communications concerning the illegal activities will be obtained via the interception; (3) the communications device will be used by the person whose communications are to be intercepted; and (4) normal investigative procedures will not be successful. As to the fourth criteria, the finding by the authorizing court is entitled to substantial deference…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. McCray
Case #: B188049
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 10/26/2006

Following his conviction for controlled substance offenses, appellant was ordered to provide DNA specimens and samples pursuant to Penal Code section 296. On appeal, appellant did not challenge his conviction, but challenged the constitutionality of the DNA and Forensic Identification Database and Data Bank Act of 1998 (DNA Act) as amended by Proposition 69 (Pen. Code, sec. 295 et seq.). He contended that the provision authorizing the California DOJ to share its DNA database with foreign law enforcement agencies is overbroad and a violation of the right to privacy. The appellate court held that appellant forfeited his…

View Full Summary