Skip to content
Name: United States v. Osife
Case #: 04-10172
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 02/22/2005

Osife was arrested for public urination, which occurred on the ground next to his truck. Police searched the truck and found a firearm. A records check showed that the gun was stolen and that appellant had a prior felony conviction. The court denied Osife's motion to suppress the gun, finding that the search was incident to the arrest. On appeal, Osife argued that the search of the truck was not reasonably aimed at discovering evidence related to the crime for which he was arrested. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. Under Belton,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Wilson
Case #: A102208
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 12/30/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. den. 3/17/04

Prior to his DUI arrest, appellant consented to a PAS breath test which tested his blood alcohol level at 0.09 percent. Following his arrest, he was required to submit to a blood test, which measured his blood alcohol at 0.12. On appeal, he contended that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the taking of his blood after he voluntarily submitted to the PAS test. (Arguing that the recent decision in People v. Williams (2002) 28 Cal. 4th 408, which clarified under what conditions the PAS test is admissible, eliminated any justification for the nonconsensual taking of…

View Full Summary
Name: Maryland v. Pringle
Case #: 02-809
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 12/15/2003
Subsequent History: Cross cites: 124 S. Ct. 795; 157 L. Ed. 2d 769

Defendant’s confession did not require suppression where it resulted from a lawful arrest undertaken with probable cause. An officer stopped a car for speeding and saw a large amount of cash in the glove compartment while the driver was retrieving his registration. The driver consented to a search of the car, and officers found cocaine in the back seat. All three passengers, including the defendant, were arrested and taken to the police station. The defendant waived his rights under Miranda and confessed that he was the owner of the drugs. He later moved to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ledesma
Case #: A097337
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 02/28/2003
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 5/14/03.

Under the facts known to them, the police could conduct a protective sweep of a house which a probationer with a search condition had identified as her residence and which they verified with county records. Although she could not enter the house the day before because it was locked, she had pointed through the window at some keys and said they were probably hers. When officers returned the next day, the police noticed two cars parked in front of the house and a trailer in the driveway. Defendant answered the door and said the probationer did not…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Sanders
Case #: F033862
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 11/20/2000
Subsequent History: Review Granted February 28, 2001 (S094088)

Here, because the search of appellant's entire residence was without reasonable cause to believe the areas swept harbored an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene, the court held that the "protective sweep doctrine" did not apply, and the search was therefore invalidated. The court explicitly found that the departmental policy of making a protective sweep of a residence to make sure there is no one else in the residence that could endanger the officers' safety was in "direct contravention" of the limits of the protective sweep adopted in Maryland v. Buie (1990) 494 U.S. 325,…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Furrow
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 10/12/2000
Subsequent History: None

The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's ruling denying a motion to suppress evidence, and remanded for further proceedings. The first question raised was whether when investigating a loud party, the police could search the defendant's cabin as part of a protective sweep after arresting several teenagers in front of the cabin for alcohol and marijuana possession. The individuals originally would not come out, but eventually did so at the request of a woman who was with them. She told the officers that no one else was in the cabin. The…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. McKay
Case #: S091421
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 03/04/2002
Subsequent History: Affiurmed.

Appellant McKay was arrested for an infraction of riding his bicycle in the wrong direction on a residential street; a violation of Vehicle Code section 21650.1, punishable by a fine not to exceed $100. The deputy intended to issue only a citation, but since appellant did not have his "driver's license or other satisfactory evidence of his identity" on him, he arrested appellant pursuant to Vehicle Code section 40302, subdivision (a). During a search incident to the arrest, a baggie of methamphetamine was found in appellant's sock. The name and date of birth appellant gave the officer…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Valencia-Amezcua
Case #: 00-30365
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 01/22/2002
Subsequent History: None

Appellant contended a search of his person and clothing was unjustified because there was no probable cause to arrest him. The appellate court concluded otherwise. The homeowner, who was a suspected drug trafficker who had recently been seen in a suspicious transaction, consented to the search. A bedroom contained a hidden door covered with paneling, which led to a secret room, which in turn contained supplies and equipment for making methamphetamine. Appellant and others were found sitting on a bed which that obscured the door. Appellant’s proximity to the door, blocking entrance to the secret room…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Rousseau
Case #: 00-30214
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 07/03/2001
Subsequent History: None

Officers observed a knife which was in plain view in Rousseau's truck when they pulled up beside him. They then searched the vehicle, finding a firearm. Rousseau argued that the knife was unlawfully seized because he was neither carrying it, nor was there probable cause to believe he had committed a crime. The appellate court here affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress. Rousseau was a known convicted felon, who was "carrying" the weapon in his vehicle under Oregon law. The subsequent search of his vehicle, which led to the seizure of a…

View Full Summary
Name: Arkansas v. Sullivan
Case #: 00-262
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 05/29/2001
Subsequent History: None

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed suppression of a search otherwise supported by probable cause to arrest for a fine-only traffic violating (speeding) on the ground that the officer arrested appellant only upon a pretext and thus had an improper subjective motivation. The U.S. Supreme Court held this decision was "flatly contrary" to its controlling precedent that an officer's subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable cause Fourth Amendment analysis. Moreover, under Oregon v. Hass (1975) 420 U.S. 714, a state supreme court may not impose greater protections under the federal constitution than the U.S. Supreme Court…

View Full Summary