field inquiry in California

2020We address these arguments in turn. 12 As previously noted, Jacobsen also separately discussed the government’s field test—concluding the testing of the white substance did not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. ( Jacobsen, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 122-123.) Because the same cannot be said for the agent’s actions in opening and viewing Wilson’s digital images (i.e., these actions do constitute a search), this part of the Jacobsen decision does not directly apply here.

2020We address these arguments in turn. 12 As previously noted, Jacobsen also separately discussed the government’s field test—concluding the testing of the white substance did not constitute a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. ( Jacobsen, supra, 466 U.S. at pp. 122-123.) Because the same cannot be said for the agent’s actions in opening and viewing Wilson’s digital images (i.e., these actions do constitute a search), this part of the Jacobsen decision does not directly apply here.

2014J.G. (1999) 320 N.J.

2014J.G., supra, 726 A.2d at p. 953 .) But here, Deputy Ochoa did not accuse defendant of any crime; he asked defendant whether he was on probation or parole, and merely asking 17 whether a person is on probation or parole does not in and of itself constitute an “unsupported outright accusation of criminal activity” to convert the inquiry into a detention.

2006(Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks (2002) 27 Cal.4th 228, 239 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 900 , 38 P.3d 1120 ]; Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83, 88 [ 124 P.2d 34 ].) North Bay argues that this rule is not applicable here because, once again, “[t]he protection of the public is not at issue in the context of this private project.” In Miller v. McKinnon, supra, 20 Cal.2d at page 88 , the Supreme Court stated, “ ‘Certain general principles have become well established with respect to municipal contracts, and a brief statement of these principles will serve to narrow the field of our inquiry he

2006(Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks (2002) 27 Cal.4th 228, 239 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 900 , 38 P.3d 1120 ]; Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83, 88 [ 124 P.2d 34 ].) North Bay argues that this rule is not applicable here because, once again, “[t]he protection of the public is not at issue in the context of this private project.” In Miller v. McKinnon, supra, 20 Cal.2d at page 88 , the Supreme Court stated, “ ‘Certain general principles have become well established with respect to municipal contracts, and a brief statement of these principles will serve to narrow the field of our inquiry he

2006(Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks (2002) 27 Cal.4th 228, 239 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 900 , 38 P.3d 1120 ]; Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83, 88 [ 124 P.2d 34 ].) North Bay argues that this rule is not applicable here because, once again, “[t]he protection of the public is not at issue in the context of this private project.” In Miller v. McKinnon, supra, 20 Cal.2d at page 88 , the Supreme Court stated, “ ‘Certain general principles have become well established with respect to municipal contracts, and a brief statement of these principles will serve to narrow the field of our inquiry he

2006(Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks (2002) 27 Cal.4th 228, 239 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 900 , 38 P.3d 1120 ]; Miller v. McKinnon (1942) 20 Cal.2d 83, 88 [ 124 P.2d 34 ].) North Bay argues that this rule is not applicable here because, once again, “[t]he protection of the public is not at issue in the context of this private project.” In Miller v. McKinnon, supra, 20 Cal.2d at page 88 , the Supreme Court stated, “ ‘Certain general principles have become well established with respect to municipal contracts, and a brief statement of these principles will serve to narrow the field of our inquiry he

1995(See People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 591, 594-610 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 ] (Leahy); People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 30-32 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ] (Kelly).) A. HGN and Intoxication “Nystagmus is an involuntary rapid movement of the eyeball, which may be horizontal, vertical, or rotatory. [Citation.] An inability of the eyes to maintain visual fixation as they are turned from side to side (in other words jerking or bouncing) is known as horizontal gaze nystagmus, or HGN. [Citation.]” (People v. Ojeda (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 404, 406 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 472 ].) The

1995(See People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 591, 594-610 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 ] (Leahy); People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 30-32 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ] (Kelly).) A. HGN and Intoxication “Nystagmus is an involuntary rapid movement of the eyeball, which may be horizontal, vertical, or rotatory. [Citation.] An inability of the eyes to maintain visual fixation as they are turned from side to side (in other words jerking or bouncing) is known as horizontal gaze nystagmus, or HGN. [Citation.]” (People v. Ojeda (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 404, 406 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 472 ].) The

1995Therefore, leaving aside the issue of whether estoppel will lie against the District as a governmental entity (City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 496 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 23 , 476 P.2d 423 ]), 8 the comprehensiveness of the statutory scheme bars the City from invoking the equitable doctrine of estoppel to achieve dissolution of the District.

1995Therefore, leaving aside the issue of whether estoppel will lie against the District as a governmental entity (City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 496 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 23 , 476 P.2d 423 ]), 8 the comprehensiveness of the statutory scheme bars the City from invoking the equitable doctrine of estoppel to achieve dissolution of the District.

1995(See People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 591, 594-610 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 ] (Leahy); People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 30-32 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ] (Kelly).) A. HGN and Intoxication “Nystagmus is an involuntary rapid movement of the eyeball, which may be horizontal, vertical, or rotatory. [Citation.] An inability of the eyes to maintain visual fixation as they are turned from side to side (in other words jerking or bouncing) is known as horizontal gaze nystagmus, or HGN. [Citation.]” (People v. Ojeda (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 404, 406 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 472 ].) The

1995(See People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 591, 594-610 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 ] (Leahy); People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 30-32 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ] (Kelly).) A. HGN and Intoxication “Nystagmus is an involuntary rapid movement of the eyeball, which may be horizontal, vertical, or rotatory. [Citation.] An inability of the eyes to maintain visual fixation as they are turned from side to side (in other words jerking or bouncing) is known as horizontal gaze nystagmus, or HGN. [Citation.]” (People v. Ojeda (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 404, 406 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 472 ].) The

1995(See People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 591, 594-610 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 ] (Leahy); People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 30-32 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ] (Kelly).) A. HGN and Intoxication “Nystagmus is an involuntary rapid movement of the eyeball, which may be horizontal, vertical, or rotatory. [Citation.] An inability of the eyes to maintain visual fixation as they are turned from side to side (in other words jerking or bouncing) is known as horizontal gaze nystagmus, or HGN. [Citation.]” (People v. Ojeda (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 404, 406 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 472 ].) The

1995(See People v. Leahy (1994) 8 Cal.4th 587, 591, 594-610 [ 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 663 , 882 P.2d 321 ] (Leahy); People v. Kelly (1976) 17 Cal.3d 24, 30-32 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 144 , 549 P.2d 1240 ] (Kelly).) A. HGN and Intoxication “Nystagmus is an involuntary rapid movement of the eyeball, which may be horizontal, vertical, or rotatory. [Citation.] An inability of the eyes to maintain visual fixation as they are turned from side to side (in other words jerking or bouncing) is known as horizontal gaze nystagmus, or HGN. [Citation.]” (People v. Ojeda (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 404, 406 [ 275 Cal.Rptr. 472 ].) The

1992The field of inquiry upon subjects properly involved in the endeavor to ascertain whether the juror is free from actual or implied bias is so broad that it will give each party ample opportunity to obtain information concerning the advisability of making peremptory challenges to the respective jurors." ( Id. at p. 755.) The court therefore held that a defendant "`cannot embark in a general exploration for the sole purpose of satisfying himself whether it will be safe to be tried by a juror against whom no legal objections can be urged.'" ( Id. at pp. 755-756, quoting People v. Hamilton (1882)

1992The field of inquiry upon subjects properly involved in the endeavor to ascertain whether the juror is free from actual or implied bias is so broad that it will give each party ample opportunity to obtain information concerning the advisability of making peremptory challenges to the respective jurors." ( Id. at p. 755.) The court therefore held that a defendant "`cannot embark in a general exploration for the sole purpose of satisfying himself whether it will be safe to be tried by a juror against whom no legal objections can be urged.'" ( Id. at pp. 755-756, quoting People v. Hamilton (1882)

1957(People v. Ives, 17 Cal.2d 459, 476 [ 110 P.2d 408 ]; People v. Harrison, 18 Cal.App. 288, 294 [ 123 P. 200 ]; see Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., vol. 2, §§493-495, pp. 586-587.) It bears emphasis that the witness’s competency depends upon his ability to perceive, recollect, and communicate.

1957(People v. Ives, 17 Cal.2d 459, 476 [ 110 P.2d 408 ]; People v. Harrison, 18 Cal.App. 288, 294 [ 123 P. 200 ]; see Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., vol. 2, §§493-495, pp. 586-587.) It bears emphasis that the witness’s competency depends upon his ability to perceive, recollect, and communicate.

1957(People v. Ives, 17 Cal.2d 459, 476 [ 110 P.2d 408 ]; People v. Harrison, 18 Cal.App. 288, 294 [ 123 P. 200 ]; see Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., vol. 2, §§493-495, pp. 586-587.) It bears emphasis that the witness’s competency depends upon his ability to perceive, recollect, and communicate.

1957(People v. Ives, 17 Cal.2d 459, 476 [ 110 P.2d 408 ]; People v. Harrison, 18 Cal.App. 288, 294 [ 123 P. 200 ]; see Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., vol. 2, §§493-495, pp. 586-587.) It bears emphasis that the witness’s competency depends upon his ability to perceive, recollect, and communicate.

1957As was said in People v. Tyree, 21 Cal.App. 701, 706 [ 132 P. 784 ], “The statute does not undertake to prescribe or define *420 the amount or degree of mental unsoundness that must exist in order to disqualify the witness, but the reason for the existence of such a statute should be invoked, and we interpret that reason to require that the witness should have some apprehension of the obligation of an oath, and that he shall be capable of giving a fairly correct account of the things he has seen or heard, and this test should be made with special reference to the field of inquiry and character

1957As was said in People v. Tyree, 21 Cal.App. 701, 706 [ 132 P. 784 ], “The statute does not undertake to prescribe or define *420 the amount or degree of mental unsoundness that must exist in order to disqualify the witness, but the reason for the existence of such a statute should be invoked, and we interpret that reason to require that the witness should have some apprehension of the obligation of an oath, and that he shall be capable of giving a fairly correct account of the things he has seen or heard, and this test should be made with special reference to the field of inquiry and character

1953Utility Dist. v. *744 Kieffer, 99 Cal.App. 240, 261 [ 278 P. 476 , 279 P. 178 ].) The state is complaining of seven rulings in some 240 pages of the cross- examination of three experts.

1953Utility Dist. v. *744 Kieffer, 99 Cal.App. 240, 261 [ 278 P. 476 , 279 P. 178 ].) The state is complaining of seven rulings in some 240 pages of the cross- examination of three experts.