Skip to content
Name: People v. Flores
Case #: G055861
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/12/2019

An "unprovoked headlong flight" in a high crime area, without more, does not provide reasonable suspicion to perform an investigative detention. A team of police officers was investigating a residential alleyway where gang activity had been reported. Flores was seen "running from the alley," recognized from prior contacts, and detained because he was "the closest one [police] could get." He was not arrested or handcuffed. An officer testified Flores was not the suspect of a crime and not in the process of committing a crime. An officer asked Flores about a bulge in his sock. He replied it was meth…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jenkins
Case #: A099675
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 09/30/2004
Subsequent History: 12/22/04: rev. den.

While the court erred in failing to suppress statements made during an unlawful detention, the admission of those statements was not prejudicial. The defendant, a suspect in a murder and an attempted murder, was arrested without a warrant for driving without a license, and was detained for over sixteen hours while officers questioned him. He was not brought before a magistrate and the officers were not engaged in necessary administrative functions related to the traffic offense; instead, the officers detained defendant in order to question him regarding the homicide investigation. The Court of Appeal concluded that while…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Patane
Case #: 02-1183
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 06/28/2004

A failure by police to give warnings under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 prior to interrogation does not require suppression of the physical fruits of unwarned but otherwise voluntary statements. The interrogating officer here attempted to give Miranda advisements but was cut off by the defendant, who said that he knew his rights. The lower federal courts suppressed physical evidence recovered as a result of the defendant’s subsequent admissions. A four-justice plurality held that suppression of physical evidence was not required because the Miranda rule protects against violations of the self-incrimination clause, and that…

View Full Summary
Name: Ford v. Superior Court
Case #: A094667
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 07/31/2001
Subsequent History: Modif. and rehg. den. on 8/28/01. Rev. denied 11/14/01.

Suppression of appellant's confession to murder was not required where appellant was not "seized" before he made the incriminating statements. Appellant called police and reported that someone had broken into his house and there was "blood all over." Officers asked if he would mind sitting in the patrol car while they investigated, which he willingly did. They then asked him to come to the police station with them to talk, which he also willingly did. Appellant was neither handcuffed nor under arrest. He was read his Miranda rights, and signed a waiver of them. Officers testified that they were suspicious…

View Full Summary
Name: Garvin v. Farmon
Case #: 00-15295
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 08/02/2001
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was interrogated by two police officers for 45 minutes after she made repeated requests for counsel. Police officers told her that she could avoid a capital murder charge if she confessed, that nothing she told them would be used against her, and that officers had evidence against her they actually did not have. Appellant did not confess to the murder, and the interview ended after appellant told the detectives that she had not slept in three days and would call them after she got some sleep. Three days later, appellant was arraigned. She told officers she wished to speak…

View Full Summary