Policy Text
JACKIE LACEY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
ONEMINUTE
BRIEF
COPYRIGHT © 2020 LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. MAY BE REPRODUCED FOR
NON -COMMERCIA L PROSECUTORIAL, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY . 1MB@da.lacounty.gov
NUMBER : 2020-31 DATE : 09-17-20 BY: Devallis Rutledge TOPIC : Back to Basics 2
The following points have been the topics of previous 1MBs . Because some readers
were not on the job when those 1MBs were issued and ma y have missed them, here
are 10 selected points of law , with reference to previous 1MBs for further discussion
and citations. (See 1MB 2017 -21 for Back to Basics 1.)
(1) Compliance Check . A person whose identifiable residence is subject to search under
probation/parole/PRCS/supervision terms need not be present when entry and search
occur. People v. Burgener (1986) 41 Cal. 3d 505, 529 -36. (See 1MB 2018 -06.)
(2) Flight a s 148 . A suspect who flees from attempted lawful detention can be arrested
and charged with PC § 148 violation (recommended loud command : “Stop! Police! ”). People
v. Superior Court (Ferguson) (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1535. (1MB 2013 -16.)
(3) Back -up Justification . Law enforcement officers and prosecutors can reduce the risk s of
suppression of evidence by not putting all their search -and-seizure eggs in one basket,
instead identifying multi ple ways to j ustify detentions, arrests, searches and entries. Nix v.
Williams (1984) 467 US 431, 443. (1MB 2016 -14.)
(4) Statutory Violations ≠Suppression . Exclusion of evide nce does not automatically follow
from the violation of a state statute. California courts can suppress evidence only where
required by US Suprem e Court rulings on constitutional grounds, or as intentionally
authorized by a statute enacted by ⅔ vote of the Legislature after June, 1982 (such as PC §
1546.4). People v. Guzman (2019) 8 Cal.5th 673, 677 . (1MBs 2007 -13, 2019 -27.)
(5) Passenger I D. At a vehicle stop, non -suspect passengers are not required to identify
themselves merely because t hey happen to be riding with a suspect -driver. ID can always be
requested , but can be demanded from passengers only where the pas senger’s ID is related
This information was current as of publication date. It is not intended as legal advice. It is
recommended that readers check for subsequent developments, and consult legal advisors to ensure
currency af ter publication. Local policies and procedures r egarding application should be observed.
LADA ONE -MINUTE BRIEF NO. 20 20-31 PAGE 2
to the rea son f or the stop , or where the passenger is independently suspect ed of criminal
activity. Arizona v. Johnson (2009) 555 US 323, 333. (1MBs 2009 -02, 201 4-11, 2018 -21.)
(6) Impeachment with Inadmissible Evidence . A defendant ’s testimony can be impeached
with evid ence suppressed from the prosecution case -in-chief on grounds of Miranda or
Massiah violation or Fourth Amendment violation, but not with involuntary statements .
Oregon v. Hass (1975) 420 US 714, 722 (Miranda ); Kansas v. Ventris (2009) 556 US 586,
594 (Massiah); US v. Havens (1980 ) 446 US 620, 628 (4th Amendment); Mincey v. Arizona
(1978) 437 US 385, 398 (involuntary statements). (1MB s 2009 -08, 2019 -16, 2020 -20.)
(7) Bad Stop , Good Arrest . If police discover an outstanding arrest warrant for someone
unlawfully detained , they may lawfully arrest the person, and evidence from a search
incident to that arrest is then admissible. Utah v. Strieff (2016) 136 S.Ct. 2056, 2059 . (1MB
2016 -16.)
(8) ID is Not Su ppressible . A defendant may not suppress himself or his identity as the
“fruit” of a claimed unlawful detention or arrest. INS v. Lop ez-Mendoza (1984) 468 US 1032,
1039. (1MB 2011 -10.)
(9) Detention by Lights . If a police vehicle stops behind a parked , occupied vehicle and
displays forward -facing red or blue lights, the occu pants of t he veh icle would normally be
detained , requiring