37 California opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Skelton v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2000(Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 238-239 [ 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ]; People v. Camarella (1991) 54 Cal.3d 592, 600-601 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 780 , 818 P.2d 63 ].) “The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before *1041 him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (Illinois v. Gates, supra, at p. 238 [ 103 S.Ct. at p. 2000(Illinois v. Gates (1983) 462 U.S. 213, 238-239 [ 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ]; People v. Camarella (1991) 54 Cal.3d 592, 600-601 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 780 , 818 P.2d 63 ].) “The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before *1041 him, including the ‘veracity’ and ‘basis of knowledge’ of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” (Illinois v. Gates, supra, at p. 238 [ 103 S.Ct. at p. | 4 | 4 |
People v. Evansgreen2 sentences2014Under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, a police officer may lawfully search a vehicle without a warrant if the search is “‘based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant even through a warrant has not actually been obtained.’” (Evans, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 753 [discussing the automobile exception]; People v. Waxler (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 712, 719 [California courts have concluded odor of unburned marijuana or observation of fresh marijuana may furnish probable cause to search a vehicle under automobile exception to warrant requirement].) That was 2013Under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, a police officer may lawfully search a vehicle without a warrant if the search is "'based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not actually been obtained.'" (People v. Evans (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 735, 753 [discussing the automobile exception]; People v. Vallee, supra, 7 Cal.App.3d at p. 172 ["Where officers lawfully approach a vehicle and observe in plain 7 view contraband or other evidence of crime they are warranted in searching the vehicle and in making an arrest."].) That was the | 2 | 2 |
People v. Scomagreen2 sentences1971A search warrant is validly issued when the affidavits upon which it is based contain competent evidence “sufficient to support the finding of the magistrate.” (People v. Scoma, 71 Cal.2d 332, 336 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 455 P.2d 419 ].) “In determining the sufficiency of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant the test of probable cause is approximately the same as that applicable to an arrest without a warrant, a commitment by a magistrate or an indictment by a grand jury [citations], namely, whether the facts contained in the affidavit are such as would lead a man of ordinary caution 1969(Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 378 U.S. at p. 111 [ 12 L.Ed.2d at p. 726 ].) In order for a search warrant to satisfy the constitutional requirement of probable cause, the affidavits upon which it is based must contain competent evidence “sufficient to support the finding of the magistrate.” (People v. Scoma (1969) 71 Cal.2d 332, 336 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 455 P.2d 419 ].) In determining the sufficiency of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant the test of probable cause is approximately the same as that applicable to an arrest without a warrant, a commitment by a magistrate or an indictme | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Rossgreen2 sentences1989We determine by this appeal that the exception to the search warrant requirement that arises when an officer has probable cause to search a vehicle for particular contraband (United States v. Ross (1982) 456 U.S. 798 [ 72 L.Ed.2d 572 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 ]) does not terminate because a suspect’s conduct prevents the officer from completing the search. 1989We determine by this appeal that the exception to the search warrant requirement that arises when an officer has probable cause to search a vehicle for particular contraband (United States v. Ross (1982) 456 U.S. 798 [ 72 L.Ed.2d 572 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 ]) does not terminate because a suspect’s conduct prevents the officer from completing the search. | 1 | 3 |
People v. Kraftgreen2 sentences2023(Ibid.) “The question facing a reviewing court asked to determine whether probable cause supported the issuance of the warrant is whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding a fair probability existed that a search would uncover wrongdoing. [Citations.] ‘The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will 2013(See People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1044 [“Having found a substance suspected to be blood, searching officers clearly had probable cause to believe criminal activity had occurred in the car . . . .”], underscore added.) Accordingly, he could lawfully search “any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.” (Gant, supra, 556 U.S. 347 [ 173 L.Ed.2d at p. 498 ].) Because Officer Hernandez’s search of the trunk was lawful under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, we reject defendant’s claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by fail | 1 | 2 |
cluster 780906green2 sentences2015The officers detained employees present during the search and advised them they were not under arrest, but that each “would be held in the waiting room until they submitted to individual interviews with police investigators in a back room.” (Ganwich, supra, 319 F.3d at p. 1118.) As here, the detainees gained their release only after officers completed their interrogation. 2015The officers detained employees present during the search and advised them they were not under arrest, but that each “would be held in the waiting room until they submitted to individual interviews with police investigators in a back room.” (Ganwich, supra, 319 F.3d at p. 1118 .) As here, the detainees gained their release only after officers completed their interrogation. | 1 | 2 |
Williams v. Justice Courtgreen2 sentences1972“In determining the sufficiency of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant the test of probable cause is approximately *418 the same as that applicable to an arrest without a warrant, a commitment by a magistrate or an indictment by a grand jury (People v. Stout, 66 Cal. 2d 184 , 193 . . .; Williams v. Justice Court, 230 Cal.App.2d 87 , 94 . . .), namely, whether the facts contained in the affidavit are such as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to- believe, and conscientiously to entertain, a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. 1969(Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 378 U.S. at p. 111 [ 12 L.Ed.2d at p. 726 ].) In order for a search warrant to satisfy the constitutional requirement of probable cause, the affidavits upon which it is based must contain competent evidence “sufficient to support the finding of the magistrate.” (People v. Scoma (1969) 71 Cal.2d 332, 336 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 455 P.2d 419 ].) In determining the sufficiency of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant the test of probable cause is approximately the same as that applicable to an arrest without a warrant, a commitment by a magistrate or an indictme | 1 | 2 |
People v. Goveagreen2 sentences1972(People v. Govea, 235 Cal.App.2d 285, 296 . . . .)” (Skelton v, Superior Court, 1 Cal.3d 144, 150 [ 81 Cal.Rptr. 613 , 460 P.2d 485 ].) In Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 270 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 697, 708 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 78 A.L.R.2d 233 ], the court said: “What we have ruled in the case of an officer who. acts without a warrant governs our decision here. 1969(People v. Govea (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 285, 296 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 253 ].) While it is clear that probable cause does not require as strong evidence as is needed to convict (United States v. Ventresca (1964) 380 U.S. 102, 107 [ 13 L.Ed.2d 684, 688 , 85 S.Ct. 741 ]), the exact quantum of evidence which will constitute probable cause must be judged in light of the facts and circumstances of each case. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Stoutgreen2 sentences1972“In determining the sufficiency of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant the test of probable cause is approximately *418 the same as that applicable to an arrest without a warrant, a commitment by a magistrate or an indictment by a grand jury (People v. Stout, 66 Cal. 2d 184 , 193 . . .; Williams v. Justice Court, 230 Cal.App.2d 87 , 94 . . .), namely, whether the facts contained in the affidavit are such as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to- believe, and conscientiously to entertain, a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. 1969(Aguilar v. Texas, supra, 378 U.S. at p. 111 [ 12 L.Ed.2d at p. 726 ].) In order for a search warrant to satisfy the constitutional requirement of probable cause, the affidavits upon which it is based must contain competent evidence “sufficient to support the finding of the magistrate.” (People v. Scoma (1969) 71 Cal.2d 332, 336 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 455 P.2d 419 ].) In determining the sufficiency of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant the test of probable cause is approximately the same as that applicable to an arrest without a warrant, a commitment by a magistrate or an indictme | 1 | 2 |
People v. Waxlergreen1 sentence2014Under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, a police officer may lawfully search a vehicle without a warrant if the search is “‘based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant even through a warrant has not actually been obtained.’” (Evans, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th at p. 753 [discussing the automobile exception]; People v. Waxler (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 712, 719 [California courts have concluded odor of unburned marijuana or observation of fresh marijuana may furnish probable cause to search a vehicle under automobile exception to warrant requirement].) That was | 1 | 1 |
Alabama v. Whitegreen2 sentences2013“If there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-821 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982) [(Ross)], authorizes a search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.” (Gant, supra, 556 U.S. 347 [ 173 L.Ed.2d at p. 498 ], italics added.) “ ‘Probable cause means “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found . . . .” ’ ” (Alabama v. White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330 [ 110 L. 2013“If there is probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity, United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 820-821 , 102 S.Ct. 2157 , 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982) [(Ross)], authorizes a search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.” (Gant, supra, 556 U.S. 347 [ 173 L.Ed.2d at p. 498 ], italics added.) “ ‘Probable cause means “a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found . . . .” ’ ” (Alabama v. White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330 [ 110 L. | 1 | 1 |
People v. SZADZIEWICZgreen1 sentence2013(See People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1044 [“Having found a substance suspected to be blood, searching officers clearly had probable cause to believe criminal activity had occurred in the car . . . .”], underscore added.) Accordingly, he could lawfully search “any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.” (Gant, supra, 556 U.S. 347 [ 173 L.Ed.2d at p. 498 ].) Because Officer Hernandez’s search of the trunk was lawful under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, we reject defendant’s claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by fail | 1 | 1 |
People v. Valleegreen1 sentence2013Under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, a police officer may lawfully search a vehicle without a warrant if the search is "'based on facts that would justify the issuance of a warrant, even though a warrant has not actually been obtained.'" (People v. Evans (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 735, 753 [discussing the automobile exception]; People v. Vallee, supra, 7 Cal.App.3d at p. 172 ["Where officers lawfully approach a vehicle and observe in plain 7 view contraband or other evidence of crime they are warranted in searching the vehicle and in making an arrest."].) That was the | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Snipegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Illinois v. Gatesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Camarellagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Duncangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Katz v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Pompa-Ortizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Chaversgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wimberly v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. United Statesred | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Ventrescagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Aguilar v. Texasred | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Colorado v. Bertine
green
2 sentences2022(Bertine, supra, 479 U.S. at p. 374 ; Williams, at p. 761.) But “the action taken must nonetheless be reasonable in light of the justification for the impound and inventory exception to the search warrant requirement.” (Williams, at pp. 761-762.) When the impound decision is not reasonable, the resulting inventory search also is not reasonable. 2016An inventory search of a vehicle impounded by police is a well-recognized exception to the search warrant requirement because it serves “to protect an owner’s property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger.” (Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367, 372 ; Florida v. Wells (1990) 495 U.S. 1, 4 .) The police have a legitimate interest in taking an inventory of the contents, including closed containers, in a vehicle they legally impound. | 4 | 2002–2022 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2010Such searches are an exception to the search warrant requirement, but only if they are conducted pursuant to "standardized criteria" or an "established routine," that is, if the police agency has a policy regarding conducting such searches and if the policy is followed in the particular case. ( Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367 , 374-375 , fn. 6 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 739 , 107 S.Ct. 738 ]; Florida v. Wells (1990) 495 U.S. 1 , 4 [ 109 L.Ed.2d 1 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 ]; People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119 , 126 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275 , 973 P.2d 52 ].) Defendant argues that the search of his car in th 2010Such searches are an exception to the search warrant requirement, but only if they are conducted pursuant to "standardized criteria" or an "established routine," that is, if the police agency has a policy regarding conducting such searches and if the policy is followed in the particular case. ( Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367 , 374-375 , fn. 6 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 739 , 107 S.Ct. 738 ]; Florida v. Wells (1990) 495 U.S. 1 , 4 [ 109 L.Ed.2d 1 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 ]; People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119 , 126 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275 , 973 P.2d 52 ].) Defendant argues that the search of his car in th | 4 | 2000–2016 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2026Reasonableness is ‘the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.’ ” 6 (People v. Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756 , 761–762 (Williams).) “The question is ‘whether a decision to impound or remove a vehicle . . . was reasonable under all the circumstances.’ ” (People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 52 .) 6 Section 22650, subdivision (b) similarly provides: “Any removal of a vehicle is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and [s]ection 13 of [a]rticle I of the California Constitution, and shall be reasonable and subject to the limits set forth in Fourth Amendm 2026Reasonableness is ‘the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.’ ” 6 (People v. Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756 , 761–762 (Williams).) “The question is ‘whether a decision to impound or remove a vehicle . . . was reasonable under all the circumstances.’ ” (People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 52 .) 6 Section 22650, subdivision (b) similarly provides: “Any removal of a vehicle is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and [s]ection 13 of [a]rticle I of the California Constitution, and shall be reasonable and subject to the limits set forth in Fourth Amendm | 3 | 2014–2026 |
Florida v. Wells
green
2 sentences2016An inventory search of a vehicle impounded by police is a well-recognized exception to the search warrant requirement because it serves “to protect an owner’s property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger.” (Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367, 372 ; Florida v. Wells (1990) 495 U.S. 1, 4 .) The police have a legitimate interest in taking an inventory of the contents, including closed containers, in a vehicle they legally impound. 2010Such searches are an exception to the search warrant requirement, but only if they are conducted pursuant to "standardized criteria" or an "established routine," that is, if the police agency has a policy regarding conducting such searches and if the policy is followed in the particular case. ( Colorado v. Bertine (1987) 479 U.S. 367 , 374-375 , fn. 6 [ 93 L.Ed.2d 739 , 107 S.Ct. 738 ]; Florida v. Wells (1990) 495 U.S. 1 , 4 [ 109 L.Ed.2d 1 , 110 S.Ct. 1632 ]; People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119 , 126 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 275 , 973 P.2d 52 ].) Defendant argues that the search of his car in th | 3 | 2002–2016 |
Arizona v. Gant
green
2 sentences2013(See People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1044 [“Having found a substance suspected to be blood, searching officers clearly had probable cause to believe criminal activity had occurred in the car . . . .”], underscore added.) Accordingly, he could lawfully search “any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.” (Gant, supra, 556 U.S. 347 [ 173 L.Ed.2d at p. 498 ].) Because Officer Hernandez’s search of the trunk was lawful under the automobile exception to the search warrant requirement, we reject defendant’s claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by fail 2010DISCUSSION A. Search Incident to Arrest Defendant contends that the search of his vehicle was not valid under the search-incident-to-arrest exception to the search warrant requirement, as it exceeded the scope of such a search under the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Gant, supra , 556 U.S. ___ [ 129 S.Ct. 1710 ], and the evidence seized from his car should therefore be suppressed. 1. | 3 | 2009–2013 |
People v. Duong
green
2 sentences2026Reasonableness is ‘the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.’ ” 6 (People v. Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756 , 761–762 (Williams).) “The question is ‘whether a decision to impound or remove a vehicle . . . was reasonable under all the circumstances.’ ” (People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 52 .) 6 Section 22650, subdivision (b) similarly provides: “Any removal of a vehicle is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and [s]ection 13 of [a]rticle I of the California Constitution, and shall be reasonable and subject to the limits set forth in Fourth Amendm 2026Reasonableness is ‘the touchstone of the Fourth Amendment.’ ” 6 (People v. Williams (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 756 , 761–762 (Williams).) “The question is ‘whether a decision to impound or remove a vehicle . . . was reasonable under all the circumstances.’ ” (People v. Duong (2020) 10 Cal.5th 36, 52 .) 6 Section 22650, subdivision (b) similarly provides: “Any removal of a vehicle is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and [s]ection 13 of [a]rticle I of the California Constitution, and shall be reasonable and subject to the limits set forth in Fourth Amendm | 2 | 2026–2026 |
Halajian v. D & B Towing
green
2 sentences2026(Halajian v. D & B Towing (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 .) “Although a police officer is not required to adopt the least intrusive course of action in deciding whether to impound and search a car [citation], the action taken must nonetheless be reasonable in light of the justification for the impound and inventory exception to the search warrant requirement. 2026(Halajian v. D & B Towing (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1, 16 .) “Although a police officer is not required to adopt the least intrusive course of action in deciding whether to impound and search a car [citation], the action taken must nonetheless be reasonable in light of the justification for the impound and inventory exception to the search warrant requirement. | 2 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Ray
green
2 sentences2014When they arrived, officers “approached the front porch of the residence, where a 40-year-old White 2 In People v. Ray (1999) 21 Cal.4th 464, 470-477 , a plurality applied the community caretaking exception and its subcategory the emergency aid exception to the search warrant requirement to residences. 2008They are "expected to aid those in distress, combat actual hazards, prevent potential hazards from materializing, and provide an infinite variety of services to preserve and protect community safety." ( U.S. v. Rodriguez-Morales (1st Cir. 1991) 929 F.2d 780 , 784-785 .) For example, the community caretaking function encompasses law enforcement's authority to remove vehicles that impede traffic or threaten public safety and to inventory the contents of impounded vehicles. ( See South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364 , 368-372 [ 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 , 1005-1007 , 96 S.Ct. 3092 ].) The search wa | 2 | 2008–2014 |
People v. Glenn-Powers
green
2 sentences2013(Glenn-Powers, supra, 823 N.W.2d at p. 133 ; Sherman, supra, 502 F.3d at pp. 883-884.) And the courts reason that when an arrest warrant is not constitutionally required at all, it follows that a state’s use of an unsworn warrant does not run afoul of the federal Constitution. 2013(Glenn-Powers, supra, 823 N.W.2d at p. 133 ; Sherman, supra, 502 F.3d at pp. 883-884.) And, the courts reason that when an arrest warrant is not constitutionally required at all, it follows that a state's use of an unsworn warrant does not run afoul of the federal Constitution. ( Glenn-Powers, supra, at p. 133 ; Sherman, supra, at pp. 883-884 .) In Glenn-Powers, the court cited Griffin's holding dispensing with the warrant requirement for the search of a probationer's home, and concluded: "If the Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant to search a probationer's home, then it is not unreaso | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Griffin v. Wisconsin
green
2 sentences2013Moreover, the delay inherent in obtaining a warrant would make it more difficult for probation officials to respond quickly to evidence of misconduct, . . . and would reduce the deterrent effect that the possibility of expeditious searches would otherwise create . . . .” (Griffin, supra, 483 U.S. at p. 876 , citation *1233 omitted.) The courts have applied the Griffin principle dispensing with the search warrant requirement for probationers to also dispense with the arrest warrant requirement for probationers or other supervised released offenders. 2013Moreover, the delay inherent in obtaining a warrant would make it more difficult for probation officials to respond quickly to evidence of misconduct, . . . and would reduce the deterrent effect that the possibility of expeditious searches would otherwise create . . . ." (Griffin, supra, 483 U.S. at p. 876 .) The courts have applied the Griffin principle dispensing with the search warrant requirement for probationers to also dispense with the arrest warrant requirement for probationers or other supervised released offenders. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
People v. Scoma
green
2 sentences1971A search warrant is validly issued when the affidavits upon which it is based contain competent evidence “sufficient to support the finding of the magistrate.” (People v. Scoma, 71 Cal.2d 332, 336 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 455 P.2d 419 ].) “In determining the sufficiency of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant the test of probable cause is approximately the same as that applicable to an arrest without a warrant, a commitment by a magistrate or an indictment by a grand jury [citations], namely, whether the facts contained in the affidavit are such as would lead a man of ordinary caution 1971A search warrant is validly issued when the affidavits upon which it is based contain competent evidence “sufficient to support the finding of the magistrate.” (People v. Scoma, 71 Cal.2d 332, 336 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 455 P.2d 419 ].) “In determining the sufficiency of an affidavit for the issuance of a search warrant the test of probable cause is approximately the same as that applicable to an arrest without a warrant, a commitment by a magistrate or an indictment by a grand jury [citations], namely, whether the facts contained in the affidavit are such as would lead a man of ordinary caution | 2 | 1969–1971 |
People v. Cahan
green
2 sentences1962The defendant, appellant herein, was charged with possession of marijuana, a violation of section *554 11530 of the Health and Safety Code; waived a jury trial; submitted his case, by stipulation of all parties, upon the evidence introduced at his preliminary hearing; was found guilty; was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison; and appeals from the judgment so entered upon the sole ground that his conviction is not supported by legal evidence, in that the only proof thereof was a marijuana cigarette taken from his person without a search warrant and in violation of the constitutional p 1962The defendant, appellant herein, was charged with possession of marijuana, a violation of section *554 11530 of the Health and Safety Code; waived a jury trial; submitted his case, by stipulation of all parties, upon the evidence introduced at his preliminary hearing; was found guilty; was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison; and appeals from the judgment so entered upon the sole ground that his conviction is not supported by legal evidence, in that the only proof thereof was a marijuana cigarette taken from his person without a search warrant and in violation of the constitutional p | 2 | 1962–1962 |
People v. Clark
green
1 sentence2023(Ibid.) “The question facing a reviewing court asked to determine whether probable cause supported the issuance of the warrant is whether the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding a fair probability existed that a search would uncover wrongdoing. [Citations.] ‘The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, commonsense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the “veracity” and “basis of knowledge” of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. M.V.
green
1 sentence2021(In re M.V. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1519 .) The juvenile court’s denial of appellant’s motion to quash and traverse the search warrant was not error because the affiant’s failure to indicate that the victim thought the gun appeared to be fake was not material to an assessment of probable cause to issue the warrant. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Missouri v. McNeely
green
1 sentence2016He also challenges the constitutionality of a warrantless blood draw from his August DUI arrest, arguing it violated the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Missouri v. McNeely (2013) --U.S.--, [ 185 L.Ed.2d 696, 702 ] (McNeely), which found that the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream, by itself, was insufficient to establish the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment’s search warrant requirement for blood draws in drunk driving cases. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Sanders
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318, 334 .) A warrantless search is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless a recognized exception to the search warrant requirement applies. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Hoeninghaus
green
1 sentence2015(People v. Hoeninghaus (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1184 .) Consent is one such recognized exception to the warrant requirement. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Green green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Chimel v. California red | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| New York v. Belton red | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Brigham City v. Stuart green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| United States v. Osvaldo Rodriguez-Morales green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| United States v. Matthew Stafford green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| South Dakota v. Opperman green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Walter v. United States green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| California v. Ciraolo green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Dahms neutral | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| People v. Cook green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| California v. Carney green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Mincey v. Arizona green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| State v. Serbescu green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.