Arrest

Name: People v. Hayes
Case #: A173642
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 06/12/2026

Trial court incorrectly traversed an arrest warrant when the warrant affidavit still set forth sufficient facts to establish probable cause even after false statements were excised. Therefore, even though the coercive tactics used to force appellant from his apartment constituted an in-home arrest for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the police lawfully could arrest defendant in his home or by forcing him from it.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: In re I.H.
Case #: E084852
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/25/2026

Probable cause for arrest does not dissipate based on mistaken identity until officers know beyond a reasonable doubt that they have the wrong person. Law enforcement executing an arrest warrant mistakenly arrested appellant as the suspect based on a matching description and an officer's positive identification. After realizing that appellant was not the suspect, but before confirming it, an officer asked if appellant was armed, and appellant indicated a gun in his waistband. The Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of appellant's motion to suppress the firearm, holding that probable cause to arrest and search the appellant did not cease…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rifat
Case #: E086574
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 05/27/2026

Motion to seal arrest record (PC 851.93) properly denied where defendant’s arrest had a “causal link” to a subsequent conviction. Defendant was arrested following indictment in case no. RIF1990022, a case dismissed when he later pleaded guilty in case no. RIF2401013. Sufficient overlap in the charged offenses, dates, and factual bases meant that the conviction in case no. RIF2401013 “derived from the behavior” triggering the arrest in case no. RIF1990022.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Diaz (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1172
Case #: B319020
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 12/18/2023

Case remanded for trial court to consider whether People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688 and Senate Bill No. 81 impact defendant’s sentence because the court was not aware of these legal developments at the time of sentencing. Diaz was convicted of first degree murder based on evidence that he shot and killed a street vendor for selling tacos on a street claimed by another taco street vendor. He raised a number of issues on appeal, including that, at sentencing, no one involved knew about two new and significant developments affecting sentencing: the Supreme Court decision in Tirado and SB…

View Full Summary
Name: In re T.F.-G. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 893
Case #: H050112
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/24/2023

Warrantless search incident to minor’s arrest was valid because there was probable cause for his arrest for resisting police. The minor was with a group of people who were approached by police and questioned about smoking marijuana in public. He witnessed his companions being restrained and searched. Rather than submit to a search when summoned by police, he ran. Police caught and searched him, finding a loaded gun. His motion to suppress was denied and he admitted allegations in a 602 petition that he carried a loaded firearm in public (Pen. Code, § 25850(a)) and resisted arrest. On appeal, he…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Roberts
Case #: C081843
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Citation: 68 Cal.App.5th 64
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: People v. Marquez
Case #: G048762
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Citation: 31 Cal.App.5th 402
Opinion Date: 01/15/2019

The collection of defendant's DNA sample in 2006 was unlawful under the Fourth Amendment because the prosecution failed to prove defendant was validly arrested or that his DNA was collected as part of a routine booking procedure. In 2006, Marquez was arrested on suspicion of a drug offense. Four days later, officers collected a DNA sample and entered it into a statewide database. No charges were subsequently filed. Between 2006 and 2008, Marquez was arrested three more times and was ordered to submit to DNA testing on each occasion. In 2008, investigators retrieved DNA evidence from a robbery, and that…

View Full Summary
Name: In re D.W.
Case #: A145470
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Citation: 13 Cal.App.5th 1249
Opinion Date: 07/06/2017

In light of the California Supreme Court's ruling in People v. Macabeo (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1206, the juvenile court should have granted minor's suppression motion where minor was searched incident to a detention for a non-jailable infraction. Officers encountered a group of individuals while patrolling in response to a broadcast that someone in the area may have a firearm. Officers told D.W. that he smelled like marijuana, and he responded that he had just smoked. The officers decided to search D.W. for more marijuana and found a revolver in his backpack. D.W. moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that officers…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Macabeo
Case #: S221852
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Citation: 1 Cal.5th 1206
Opinion Date: 12/05/2016

Good faith exception to the exclusionary rule inapplicable to pre-Riley cell phone search because the search did not qualify as a search incident to arrest. Police stopped Macabeo for rolling through a stop sign on his bike. They searched his cell phone and found pictures of underage girls on it. Macabeo moved to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the cell phone search was a valid search incident to arrest under People v. Diaz (2011) 51 Cal.4th 84. The Court of Appeal affirmed. While recognizing that Riley v. California (2014) 573 U.S. __ [134…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Quick
Case #: B268751
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Citation: 5 Cal.App.5th 1006
Opinion Date: 11/22/2016

"A person arrested for driving under the influence may not defeat a 'search incident to arrest' by locking incriminating evidence inside his vehicle." Police received information that Quick was involved in drug activity and had firearms so they conducted a traffic stop based on Vehicle Code violations. Because Quick looked like he was under the influence, police had him step out of his car for a field sobriety test. Quick exited, took off his jacket (drugs were in the pocket), threw it into his car, then locked the car with the keys inside. He was arrested for driving under the…

View Full Summary