objective legal standard in California

2007(People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1116 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 723 , 79 P.3d 1030 ] [explaining probable cause is “a determination of the facts in light of an objective legal standard” and citing Adair].) A legal conclusion that there was “no reasonable cause” to arrest in the context of section 851.8 clearly implies a predicate factual finding that the suspect was innocent (see People v. Adair, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 905, fn. 4 [noting facts subsequently disclosed may establish a defendant’s factual innocence even when there was sufficient probable cause to arrest]).

2006Whichever the choice, the analytical perspective is ultimately the same, and the statutory standard is satisfied.” (People v. Adair, supra, 29 Cal.4th at pp. 907-908.) “The terms of [Penal Code] section 851.8[, subdivision] (b)—precluding a finding of factual innocence ‘unless no reasonable cause exists’—impose an objective legal standard on both trial and appellate courts, and do not accommodate any exercise of discretion to which the appellate court should defer.” (People v. Adair, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 908.) “In sum, the record must exonerate, not merely raise a substantial question as to

2025(People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1123 .) “Probable cause is an objective legal standard—in this case, whether the facts known would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong belief that blood, semen, or any other bodily fluid capable of transmitting HIV has been transferred from the defendant to the victim.” (People v. Butler, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1127 .) If a trial court orders AIDS testing without articulating its required reasons on the record, an appellate court will presume an implied finding of probable cause, but “the appellate court can s

2025(People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1123 .) “Probable cause is an objective legal standard—in this case, whether the facts known would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong belief that blood, semen, or any other bodily fluid capable of transmitting HIV has been transferred from the defendant to the victim.” (People v. Butler, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1127 .) If a trial court orders AIDS testing without articulating its required reasons on the record, an appellate court will presume an implied finding of probable cause, but “the appellate court can s

1992For example, in the arrest context the court said: “Probable cause to arrest without a warrant represents an objective legal standard by which to measure the reasonableness and sufficiency of the officer’s subjective beliefs that the defendant has committed an offense. [Citations.] ‘[U]nless it is first established that the police officer believed that the crime . . . had been committed by the [defendant], the issue of probable cause does not arise, for it would be a logical absurdity for the courts to be asked to determine the reasonableness of an officer’s belief that [the] particular crime

1992For example, in the arrest context the court said: “Probable cause to arrest without a warrant represents an objective legal standard by which to measure the reasonableness and sufficiency of the officer’s subjective beliefs that the defendant has committed an offense. [Citations.] ‘[U]nless it is first established that the police officer believed that the crime . . . had been committed by the [defendant], the issue of probable cause does not arise, for it would be a logical absurdity for the courts to be asked to determine the reasonableness of an officer’s belief that [the] particular crime

2015(Kaulick, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1306, fn. 29 .) We disagree. 10 First, the People misread the footnote in Kaulick.

2015(Kaulick, supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1306, fn. 29 .) We disagree. 10 First, the People misread the footnote in Kaulick.

2023Custody, for these purposes, means that the person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way. [Citation.] Furthermore, in determining if a person is in custody for Miranda purposes 9 the trial court must apply an objective legal standard and decide if a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would believe his freedom of movement was restrained to a degree normally associated with formal arrest.” (People v. Mosley (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1088 (Mosley).) “The totality of the circumstances surrounding an incident must be considered as a whole

2023Custody, for these purposes, means that the person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way. [Citation.] Furthermore, in determining if a person is in custody for Miranda purposes 9 the trial court must apply an objective legal standard and decide if a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would believe his freedom of movement was restrained to a degree normally associated with formal arrest.” (People v. Mosley (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1088 (Mosley).) “The totality of the circumstances surrounding an incident must be considered as a whole

2014“We observed that the issue presented in Butler extended beyond mere disagreement over the import of certain facts: ‘Probable cause is an objective legal standard—in this case, whether the facts known would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong belief that blood, semen, or any other bodily fluid capable of transmitting HIV has been transferred from the defendant to the victim.’ (Butler, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1127 .) A probable cause 7 determination requires ‘applying th[is] particular legal standard to the facts as found.’ (Ibid.; see Ornelas v. United

2014“We observed that the issue presented in Butler extended beyond mere disagreement over the import of certain facts: ‘Probable cause is an objective legal standard—in this case, whether the facts known would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong belief that blood, semen, or any other bodily fluid capable of transmitting HIV has been transferred from the defendant to the victim.’ (Butler, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1127 .) A probable cause 7 determination requires ‘applying th[is] particular legal standard to the facts as found.’ (Ibid.; see Ornelas v. United

2003(Cf. People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 904 , 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 799 , 62 *735 P.3d 45 [reasonable cause to establish factual innocence]; People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 410 , 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 821 P.2d 610 [reasonable or probable cause to arrest]; People v. Rhinehart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 139, 151 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 34 , 507 P.2d 642 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213, 214 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 589 P.2d 396 [reasonable cause to entertain suspicion of guilt].) Under the substantial evidence rule, a reviewing court will defer to a trial court's factual

2003(Cf. People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 904 , 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 799 , 62 *735 P.3d 45 [reasonable cause to establish factual innocence]; People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 410 , 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 821 P.2d 610 [reasonable or probable cause to arrest]; People v. Rhinehart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 139, 151 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 34 , 507 P.2d 642 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213, 214 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 589 P.2d 396 [reasonable cause to entertain suspicion of guilt].) Under the substantial evidence rule, a reviewing court will defer to a trial court's factual

2003(Cf. People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 904 , 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 799 , 62 *735 P.3d 45 [reasonable cause to establish factual innocence]; People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 410 , 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 821 P.2d 610 [reasonable or probable cause to arrest]; People v. Rhinehart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 139, 151 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 34 , 507 P.2d 642 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213, 214 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 589 P.2d 396 [reasonable cause to entertain suspicion of guilt].) Under the substantial evidence rule, a reviewing court will defer to a trial court's factual

2003(Cf. People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 904 , 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 799 , 62 *735 P.3d 45 [reasonable cause to establish factual innocence]; People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 410 , 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 821 P.2d 610 [reasonable or probable cause to arrest]; People v. Rhinehart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 139, 151 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 34 , 507 P.2d 642 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213, 214 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 589 P.2d 396 [reasonable cause to entertain suspicion of guilt].) Under the substantial evidence rule, a reviewing court will defer to a trial court's factual

2003(Cf. People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 904 , 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 799 , 62 *735 P.3d 45 [reasonable cause to establish factual innocence]; People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 410 , 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 821 P.2d 610 [reasonable or probable cause to arrest]; People v. Rhinehart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 139, 151 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 34 , 507 P.2d 642 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213, 214 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 589 P.2d 396 [reasonable cause to entertain suspicion of guilt].) Under the substantial evidence rule, a reviewing court will defer to a trial court's factual

2003(Cf. People v. Adair (2003) 29 Cal.4th 895, 904 , 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 799 , 62 *735 P.3d 45 [reasonable cause to establish factual innocence]; People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 410 , 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 106 , 821 P.2d 610 [reasonable or probable cause to arrest]; People v. Rhinehart (1973) 9 Cal.3d 139, 151 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 34 , 507 P.2d 642 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 213, 214 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 141 , 589 P.2d 396 [reasonable cause to entertain suspicion of guilt].) Under the substantial evidence rule, a reviewing court will defer to a trial court's factual

1980Thus the requirement set forth in Agar v. Superior Court (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 24, 28-29 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 148 ] and People v. Miller, supra, 7 Cal.3d at page 226 , that it first be established that the police officer believes the crime has been committed before the issue of probable cause (the objective legal standard by which to measure the reasonableness and sufficiency of the officer’s subjective beliefs) arises, is fulfilled.

1980Thus the requirement set forth in Agar v. Superior Court (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 24, 28-29 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 148 ] and People v. Miller, supra, 7 Cal.3d at page 226 , that it first be established that the police officer believes the crime has been committed before the issue of probable cause (the objective legal standard by which to measure the reasonableness and sufficiency of the officer’s subjective beliefs) arises, is fulfilled.

1980The trial court found—based on all the circumstances surrounding York’s detention and the first report of a prowler’s attempted burglary—and the description given of that prowler, there was “objective probable cause to arrest the defendant.. .. ” The Supreme Court recently again defined the standard for probable cause to arrest in these words: “Cause for arrest exists when the facts known to the arresting officer ‘would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime.’ [Citations.]” (People v.

1980The trial court found—based on all the circumstances surrounding York’s detention and the first report of a prowler’s attempted burglary—and the description given of that prowler, there was “objective probable cause to arrest the defendant.. .. ” The Supreme Court recently again defined the standard for probable cause to arrest in these words: “Cause for arrest exists when the facts known to the arresting officer ‘would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime.’ [Citations.]” (People v.

2023Custody, for these purposes, means that the person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way. [Citation.] Furthermore, in determining if a person is in custody for Miranda purposes 9 the trial court must apply an objective legal standard and decide if a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would believe his freedom of movement was restrained to a degree normally associated with formal arrest.” (People v. Mosley (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1088 (Mosley).) “The totality of the circumstances surrounding an incident must be considered as a whole

2013Custody, for these purposes, means that the person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom in any significant way. [Citation.] Furthermore, in determining if a person is in custody for Miranda purposes the trial court must apply an objective legal standard and decide if a reasonable person in the suspect’s position would believe his freedom of movement was restrained to a degree normally associated with formal arrest. [Citation.]” (People v. Mosley (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1088 (Mosley).) “The totality of the circumstances surrounding an incident must be considered

2015We review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence (Boyce, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 692 ), and the court’s assessment of the fairness of the deal and adequacy of disclosures de novo because both are measured by an objective legal standard (see Haworth v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372, 385 ).

2014We review the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence (Boyce, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 692 ), and the court’s assessment of the fairness of the deal and the adequacy of disclosures de nova because both are measured by an objective legal standard (see Haworth v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 372, 385 [ 112 Cal.Rptr.3d 853 , 235 P.3d 152 ]).

2014(People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114 .) “Nevertheless, because the terms of the statute condition imposition on the existence of probable cause, the appellate court can sustain the order . . . if it finds evidentiary support, which it can do simply from examining the record.” (People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1127 (Butler).) “Probable cause is an objective legal standard—in this case, whether the facts known would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong belief that blood, semen, or any other bodily fluid capable of transmitting HIV has b

2007(People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1116 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 723 , 79 P.3d 1030 ] [explaining probable cause is “a determination of the facts in light of an objective legal standard” and citing Adair].) A legal conclusion that there was “no reasonable cause” to arrest in the context of section 851.8 clearly implies a predicate factual finding that the suspect was innocent (see People v. Adair, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 905, fn. 4 [noting facts subsequently disclosed may establish a defendant’s factual innocence even when there was sufficient probable cause to arrest]).

2015(People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 401 (Ochoa).) To make that determination, “ ‘[t]wo discrete inquiries are essential to the determination: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. . . .’ ” (Id. at p. 401-402; Thompson, supra, 516 U.S. at pp. 112-113.) On appeal, we accept the trial court’s findings of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence but independently measure those facts against the objective legal

2015(People v. Ochoa (1998) 19 Cal.4th 353, 401 (Ochoa).) To make that determination, “ ‘[t]wo discrete inquiries are essential to the determination: first, what were the circumstances surrounding the interrogation; and second, given those circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. . . .’ ” (Id. at p. 401-402; Thompson, supra, 516 U.S. at pp. 112-113.) On appeal, we accept the trial court’s findings of historical fact if supported by substantial evidence but independently measure those facts against the objective legal

2013Defendant asks us simply “to follow Butler.” He asserts that when a trial court finds sufficient evidence to impose a booking fee, it is finding “facts in light of an objective legal standard” that we should review as a matter of law in the same manner as the probable cause finding discussed in Butler. “[A]s with an HIV testing order that is based in part on a factual finding (probable cause), an order to pay booking fees also partial[ly] rests on a factual finding (ability-to-pay); however, both employ an objective legal standard in assaying the factual finding.” Defendant argues that because

2013Defendant asks us simply “to follow Butler.” He asserts that when a trial court finds sufficient evidence to impose a booking fee, it is finding “facts in light of an objective legal standard” that we should review as a matter of law in the same manner as the probable cause finding discussed in Butler. “[A]s with an HIV testing order that is based in part on a factual finding (probable cause), an order to pay booking fees also partial[ly] rests on a factual finding (ability-to-pay); however, both employ an objective legal standard in assaying the factual finding.” Defendant argues that because

1999(Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 442 [ 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151-3152 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 ].) The test for custody does not depend on the subjective view of the interrogating officer or the person being questioned. *1089 (Stansbury v. California (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 325 [ 114 S.Ct. 1526, 1530 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 ].) The only relevant inquiry is “ ‘how a reasonable man in the suspect’s shoes would have understood his situation.’ ” (People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 394 , 889 P.2d 588 ].) The second component of custodial interrogation is obviously interrogation.

1999(Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 442 [ 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151-3152 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 ].) The test for custody does not depend on the subjective view of the interrogating officer or the person being questioned. *1089 (Stansbury v. California (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 325 [ 114 S.Ct. 1526, 1530 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 ].) The only relevant inquiry is “ ‘how a reasonable man in the suspect’s shoes would have understood his situation.’ ” (People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 394 , 889 P.2d 588 ].) The second component of custodial interrogation is obviously interrogation.

1999(Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 442 [ 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151-3152 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 ].) The test for custody does not depend on the subjective view of the interrogating officer or the person being questioned. *1089 (Stansbury v. California (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 325 [ 114 S.Ct. 1526, 1530 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 ].) The only relevant inquiry is “ ‘how a reasonable man in the suspect’s shoes would have understood his situation.’ ” (People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 394 , 889 P.2d 588 ].) The second component of custodial interrogation is obviously interrogation.

1999(Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 442 [ 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151-3152 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 ].) The test for custody does not depend on the subjective view of the interrogating officer or the person being questioned. *1089 (Stansbury v. California (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 325 [ 114 S.Ct. 1526, 1530 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 ].) The only relevant inquiry is “ ‘how a reasonable man in the suspect’s shoes would have understood his situation.’ ” (People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 394 , 889 P.2d 588 ].) The second component of custodial interrogation is obviously interrogation.

1999(Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 442 [ 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151-3152 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 ].) The test for custody does not depend on the subjective view of the interrogating officer or the person being questioned. *1089 (Stansbury v. California (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 325 [ 114 S.Ct. 1526, 1530 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 ].) The only relevant inquiry is “ ‘how a reasonable man in the suspect’s shoes would have understood his situation.’ ” (People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 394 , 889 P.2d 588 ].) The second component of custodial interrogation is obviously interrogation.

1999(Berkemer v. McCarty (1984) 468 U.S. 420, 442 [ 104 S.Ct. 3138, 3151-3152 , 82 L.Ed.2d 317 ].) The test for custody does not depend on the subjective view of the interrogating officer or the person being questioned. *1089 (Stansbury v. California (1994) 511 U.S. 318, 325 [ 114 S.Ct. 1526, 1530 , 128 L.Ed.2d 293 ].) The only relevant inquiry is “ ‘how a reasonable man in the suspect’s shoes would have understood his situation.’ ” (People v. Stansbury (1995) 9 Cal.4th 824, 830 [ 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 394 , 889 P.2d 588 ].) The second component of custodial interrogation is obviously interrogation.

1992For example, in the arrest context the court said: “Probable cause to arrest without a warrant represents an objective legal standard by which to measure the reasonableness and sufficiency of the officer’s subjective beliefs that the defendant has committed an offense. [Citations.] ‘[U]nless it is first established that the police officer believed that the crime . . . had been committed by the [defendant], the issue of probable cause does not arise, for it would be a logical absurdity for the courts to be asked to determine the reasonableness of an officer’s belief that [the] particular crime

1992For example, in the arrest context the court said: “Probable cause to arrest without a warrant represents an objective legal standard by which to measure the reasonableness and sufficiency of the officer’s subjective beliefs that the defendant has committed an offense. [Citations.] ‘[U]nless it is first established that the police officer believed that the crime . . . had been committed by the [defendant], the issue of probable cause does not arise, for it would be a logical absurdity for the courts to be asked to determine the reasonableness of an officer’s belief that [the] particular crime

1992For example, in the arrest context the court said: "Probable cause to arrest without a warrant represents an objective legal standard by which to measure the reasonableness and sufficiency of the officer's subjective beliefs that the defendant has committed an offense. [Citations.] `[ U ] nless it is first established that the police officer believed that the crime ... had been committed by the [defendant], the issue of probable cause does not arise, for it would be a logical absurdity for the courts to be asked to determine the reasonableness of an officer's belief that [the] particular crime

1992For example, in the arrest context the court said: "Probable cause to arrest without a warrant represents an objective legal standard by which to measure the reasonableness and sufficiency of the officer's subjective beliefs that the defendant has committed an offense. [Citations.] `[ U ] nless it is first established that the police officer believed that the crime ... had been committed by the [defendant], the issue of probable cause does not arise, for it would be a logical absurdity for the courts to be asked to determine the reasonableness of an officer's belief that [the] particular crime

1985(People v. Ingle (1960) 53 Cal.2d 407, 412 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 348 P.2d 577 ].) Probable cause to arrest without a warrant “represents an objective legal standard by which to measure the reasonableness and sufficiency of the officer’s subjective beliefs that the defendant has committed an offense. [Citations.]” (People v. Miller (1972) 7 Cal.3d 219, 226 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 860 , 496 P.2d 1228 ].) It would be unreasonable to require police to justify 3,490 arrests for probable cause in one suit.

1985(People v. Ingle (1960) 53 Cal.2d 407, 412 [ 2 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 348 P.2d 577 ].) Probable cause to arrest without a warrant “represents an objective legal standard by which to measure the reasonableness and sufficiency of the officer’s subjective beliefs that the defendant has committed an offense. [Citations.]” (People v. Miller (1972) 7 Cal.3d 219, 226 [ 101 Cal.Rptr. 860 , 496 P.2d 1228 ].) It would be unreasonable to require police to justify 3,490 arrests for probable cause in one suit.