Skip to content
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. Buza
Case #: S223698
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 04/02/2018

Warrantless gathering of DNA samples from a person who was validly arrested for a serious offense does not violate either the Fourth Amendment or the California Constitution. After Buza's arrest for arson, police tried unsuccessfully to obtain a DNA sample from him. The DNA Act (Pen. Code, § 296 et seq.; Prop. 69), requires police to collect DNA samples upon a felony arrest. Buza was later convicted of arson and misdemeanor refusal to provide a DNA sample (Pen. Code, § 298.1, subd. (a)). The Court of Appeal reversed the misdemeanor conviction, concluding the DNA Act violated Buza's Fourth Amendment rights.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Johnson
Case #: B282810
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 03/28/2018

Warrantless search of defendant's car, which was located two blocks from the site where he was arrested, was not valid as a search incident to arrest, but was supported by probable cause. While monitoring a housing development via closed circuit television, police saw Johnson engage in a hand-to-hand drug sale. He then left the area in his car, but returned a short time later. When Johnson was about two blocks away from his car, he was arrested. No drugs or money were found on his person. Officers then drove to his car and saw a small bag of marijuana in…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Macabeo
Case #: S221852
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
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: United States v. Williams
Case #: 15-10008
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 09/20/2016

District court erred by suppressing evidence where police had (1) reasonable suspicion to stop defendant based on a reliable tip and the surrounding circumstances, (2) probable cause to arrest defendant for obstructing their attempt to obtain his identity, and (3) probable cause to believe that further evidence of drug dealing would be found in his vehicle. Jones called police and informed them that Williams, a known drug dealer, was asleep in a black Ford outside an apartment complex he did not live at in a high-crime area. Police arrived, blocked the Ford, and illuminated their "take down" lights. Williams tried…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Lustig
Case #: 14-50549
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 07/29/2016

Good faith exception to exclusionary rule applies to search of arrestee's cell phones because binding appellate precedent at the time of the search provided a reasonable basis to believe the search was constitutional. An officer arresting Lustig searched several cell phones found in Lustig's pockets. After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, Lustig pleaded guilty to several federal offenses. He appealed. Held: Affirmed. In Riley v. California (2014) 134 S.Ct. 2473, the Court held that a warrantless search of an arrestee's cell phone violates the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the searches of the cell phones found in Lustig's pockets were…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Cook
Case #: 13-10233
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 08/13/2015

Warrantless search of defendant's backpack for weapons after his arrest was proper even though he was face down on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back and surrounded by officers at the time of the search. During a drug investigation, undercover DEA agents identified Cook as a possible drug supplier, and believed he had transported drugs in his backpack. He was arrested in front of his coconspirator's house. While he was face down on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back, agents searched his backpack for weapons but did not find any. After moving Cook,…

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: United States v. Camou
Case #: 12-50598
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 12/11/2014

Search of an arrestee's cell phone 80 minutes after his arrest does not fall within the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. Border patrol agents arrested Camou and his girlfriend after an undocumented immigrant was found in their truck. Eighty minutes later, without a warrant, agents searched Camou's cell phone for evidence of alien smuggling. Agents found images of child pornography. The U.S. Attorney did not pursue alien smuggling charges because Camou's case "did not meet prosecution guidelines." However, a grand jury indicted Camou for possessing child pornography (18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B)). Camou moved to suppress the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Macabeo
Case #: B248316
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 09/03/2014
Subsequent History: Review granted 11/25/2014: S221852

Suppression of evidence found during warrantless search of cell phone incident to arrest was not required because officers conducted search in reasonable reliance on appellate precedent. Torrance police observed Macabeo commit a traffic infraction while riding his bicycle. Macabeo was stopped and police performed first a patdown search and then a consent search of Macabeo's pockets. One officer searched Macabeo's cell phone and found child pornography, for which he was arrested (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (a)). After the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, Macabeo pled guilty to the charge. He appealed. Held: Affirmed. A custodial arrest may…

View Full Summary