Skip to content
Name: People v. Arredondo
Case #: H040980
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/26/2016
Subsequent History: Review granted 6/8/2016: S233582

Warrantless blood draw from unconscious motorist suspected of driving under the influence (DUI) does not fall within the consent exception to the warrant requirement despite California's imputed consent statute (Veh. Code, § 23612). In 2013, Arredondo flipped his Jeep with six passengers in it. While he was unconscious at the hospital, police had a phlebotomist draw his blood, which disclosed a BAC of 0.08 percent. He was charged with felony DUI and driving without a license. Arredondo moved to suppress the evidence derived from the warrantless blood draw. The court denied the motion reasoning that Arredondo had consented to the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wolfgang
Case #: E059661
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 10/05/2015

Deputy sheriff's warrantless search of defendant's bedroom was not unreasonable although it was based on misinformation regarding defendant's probation status. A Riverside Sheriff Deputy was dispatched to a modular home in response to a "suspicious activity" call. The officer ran the license plate of a trailer he located on the property and was told it had been reported stolen. The officer knocked on the door of the home and Wolfgang answered. He provided the officer with identification. The deputy ran a record check and was advised by dispatch that Wolfgang was on probation for brandishing a weapon. The deputy assumed…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Harris
Case #: E060962
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 02/01/2015

DUI arrestee's submission to chemical test under California's implied consent law resulted in warrantless blood draw that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Harris was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) and being under the influence of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11550, subd. (a)). His motion to suppress evidence was denied (People v. Harris (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1) and he appealed. Held: Affirmed. Harris claimed on appeal that submission to a chemical test under California's implied consent law (Veh. Code, §§ 23612, subd. (a)(1)(A), 13353, 23612, subd. (a)(1)(D)) does…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rodriguez
Case #: H038588
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/06/2014
Subsequent History: Review granted 3/11/2015: S223129

Despite statutory requirement that renewed motion to suppress be assigned to the same judge who previously granted it, a presiding judge has inherent authority to assign the case to a different judge in order to accommodate court scheduling. After denial of his motion to suppress evidence, appellant was convicted of possession of child pornography (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a)). On appeal he challenged the denial of his suppression motion and the trial court's refusal to assign his re-litigated motion to the judge who had earlier granted it. Held: Affirmed. Appellant's initial motion to suppress was denied by Judge Northway…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Moore
Case #: 13-10464
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/23/2014

Search of defendant's residence based on co-occupant's consent was lawful under the Fourth Amendment because defendant, who was present, never expressly refused consent. Moore's fiancée consented to a search of the house that she and Moore shared. Moore was present but did not expressly object. During the search, officers found boxes filled with marijuana and digital scales. Moore was charged with possession with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841). Moore's motion to suppress the marijuana on Fourth Amendment grounds was denied. The jury convicted him and he appealed. Held: Affirmed. Generally, a search of a residence, without a warrant,…

View Full Summary
Name: Fernandez v. California
Case #: 22-Dec
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 02/25/2014
Subsequent History: 134 S.Ct. 1126, 188 L.Ed.2d 25

Warrantless search of apartment with consent of one inhabitant was proper where the other objecting inhabitant had been lawfully arrested and removed from the home. Police officers observed a robbery suspect run into an apartment building, and heard screams coming from an apartment. They knocked on the apartment door, which was answered by Rojas, who was battered and bleeding. Fernandez then came out of the apartment and objected to a search of the apartment. Suspecting that Fernandez had assaulted Rojas, officers removed and arrested him. He was then identified as the perpetrator of the robbery, and taken to the police…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Valdes-Vega
Case #: 10-50249
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 12/24/2013

Officers on roving border patrols may conduct brief investigatory stops where they have reasonable suspicion that the driver of a vehicle is involved in criminal activity. Defendant's vehicle was stopped by Border Patrol Agents just north of the Temecula border checkpoint on I-15. Police performed a consent search of his vehicle and cocaine was found. He challenged the stop on Fourth Amendment grounds. Held: Affirmed. Reasonable suspicion is a commonsense concept that deals with the practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable persons operate and make decisions. Here, two experienced Border Patrol agents observed a truck with Mexican license…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Arreguin
Case #: 12-50484
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 11/22/2013

It was not objectively reasonable for DEA agents to conclude that a houseguest had authority to consent to a search of a home when they knew virtually nothing about the houseguest or his connection to the areas searched. DEA agents went to a home where three primary residents and a houseguest were present, intending to conduct a "knock and talk" investigation. The agents did not "know exactly who resided" in the home. The houseguest answered the door and responded, "yes," when an agent asked if they could come in and look around. Following the entry, agents performed a "cursory…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Lester
Case #: E055009
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 10/07/2013
Subsequent History: Review granted 1/15/2014: S214648

Defendant serving indeterminate Three Strikes sentence that was not final when the Three Strikes Reform Act (Proposition 36) was enacted is not entitled to an automatic sentence reduction under the new law. A jury convicted Lester of possessing drugs for sale with enhancements and found he had three strike priors. On October 28, 2011, he was sentenced to 25 years to life, plus six years. On appeal, he argued that his sentence should automatically be reduced based on Proposition 36 and In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740. Held: Affirmed. On November 6, 2012, Proposition 36 was enacted while Lester's…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Tosti
Case #: 12-10067
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/01/2013

Appellant, who had child pornography on his computer, surrendered his privacy rights when he brought the computer to a store for servicing. Tosti brought his computer to a store for repairs, knowing that a technician would inspect its contents as needed to complete the requested repairs. After finding a folder with pornographic images of children, the technician called the police, who viewed the images and seized the computer. After his arrest, Tosti's estranged wife turned over additional hard drives containing pornography. Tosti appealed the court's denial of his motions to suppress this evidence, and the appellate court affirmed. The Fourth…

View Full Summary