seizure violation in California

9 California opinions name it 3 courts 1936–2016 0 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
People v. Soungreen calctapp · 1995 · cited in 4 California opinions naming this issue, 2004–2016 2 sentences 2016(People v. Soun (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1507 (Soun).) We then exercise our independent judgment to determine if the facts found by the trial court establish a seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 2013(People v. Soun, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 1507 .) We then use our independent judgment to determine if the facts found by the trial court establish a seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.	2	4
People v. Lance W.green cal · 1985 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1987–1991 2 sentences 1991Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay, or Evidence Code Sections 352, 782 or 1103. . . .” The California Supreme Court construed this language with respect to the exclusionary rule in In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 896 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 694 P.2d 744 ], and concluded: Evidence will not be suppressed unless the seizure was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the federal exclusionary rule applies. 1991Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay, or Evidence Code Sections 352, 782 or 1103. . . .” The California Supreme Court construed this language with respect to the exclusionary rule in In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 896 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 694 P.2d 744 ], and concluded: Evidence will not be suppressed unless the seizure was in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the federal exclusionary rule applies.	2	2
Florida v. JLgreen scotus · 2000 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police constitutes a detention under the Fourth Amendment. ( Whren v. U.S. (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 809-810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 .) The reasonableness of official suspicion is measured by what the officers knew before they acted. ( Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266, 271 , 120 S.Ct. 1375 , 146 L.Ed.2d 254 .) We are required to determine whether Carruesco's reasoning resulted in a seizure that was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 2004Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police constitutes a detention under the Fourth Amendment. ( Whren v. U.S. (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 809-810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 .) The reasonableness of official suspicion is measured by what the officers knew before they acted. ( Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266, 271 , 120 S.Ct. 1375 , 146 L.Ed.2d 254 .) We are required to determine whether Carruesco's reasoning resulted in a seizure that was in violation of the Fourth Amendment.	1	1
People v. Souzagreen cal · 1994 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004"A detention is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, provide some objective manifestation that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity." ( People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 231 , 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 569 , 885 P.2d 982 .) We focus on the totality of the circumstances in assessing whether the particularized and objective facts known to the police provided reasonable cause to detain appellant. ( Id. at p. 238, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 569 , 885 P.2d 982 .) "The 2004"A detention is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, provide some objective manifestation that the person detained may be involved in criminal activity." ( People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 231 , 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 569 , 885 P.2d 982 .) We focus on the totality of the circumstances in assessing whether the particularized and objective facts known to the police provided reasonable cause to detain appellant. ( Id. at p. 238, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 569 , 885 P.2d 982 .) "The	1	1
Florida v. Bostickgreen scotus · 1991 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 1994(Florida v. Bostick, supra, 501 U.S. at p. 435 [115 L.Ed.2d at pp. 397, 399].) However, the United States Supreme Court determined the location of the encounter is but a single factor in the seizure analysis. 1994(Id. at p. 437 [ 115 L.Ed.2d at p. 400 ].) The matter was thus remanded for the state court to consider the totality of the circumstances in deciding the legality of the officers’ actions.	1	1
United States v. Salvuccigreen scotus · 1980 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 1 sentence 1991(Id. at pp. 51-52 [96 L.Ed.2d at pp. 64-65].) Jeffers made it clear that mere possession of a seized item cannot be a “substitute for a factual finding that the owner of the good had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched.” (United States v. Salvucci, supra, 448 U.S. 83, 92 [65 L.Ed.2d at pp. 628-629].) “Although the method of analysis utilized in [Jeffers] does not survive Rakas, Rawlings [Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980) 448 U.S. 98 ] and Salvucci , the Supreme Court has endorsed the conclusion that [Jeffers] . . . had a reasonable expectation of privacy.	1	1
People v. Leybagreen cal · 1981 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 2 sentences 1987(People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 597-598 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 629 P.2d 961 ].) The exclusion of evidence is not mandated unless the seizure was in violation of the federal exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 1987(People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 597-598 [ 174 Cal.Rptr. 867 , 629 P.2d 961 ].) The exclusion of evidence is not mandated unless the seizure was in violation of the federal exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
People v. Hester green calctapp · 2004 2 sentences 2010This court reviews the explicit and implicit factual findings to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence. ( People v. Soun (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1499 , 1507 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 ].) We then exercise our independent judgment to determine if the facts found by the trial court establish a seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment . ( Ibid.)" (People v. Hester (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 376 , 385 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 377 ].) Schmitz first argues the evidence should have been suppressed as the product of his unlawful detention by the deputy. 2010This court reviews the explicit and implicit factual findings to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence. ( People v. Soun (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1499 , 1507 [ 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 ].) We then exercise our independent judgment to determine if the facts found by the trial court establish a seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment . ( Ibid.)" (People v. Hester (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 376 , 385 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 377 ].) Schmitz first argues the evidence should have been suppressed as the product of his unlawful detention by the deputy.	1	2010–2010
Whren v. United States green scotus · 1996 2 sentences 2004Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police constitutes a detention under the Fourth Amendment. ( Whren v. U.S. (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 809-810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 .) The reasonableness of official suspicion is measured by what the officers knew before they acted. ( Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266, 271 , 120 S.Ct. 1375 , 146 L.Ed.2d 254 .) We are required to determine whether Carruesco's reasoning resulted in a seizure that was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 2004Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police constitutes a detention under the Fourth Amendment. ( Whren v. U.S. (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 809-810 , 116 S.Ct. 1769 , 135 L.Ed.2d 89 .) The reasonableness of official suspicion is measured by what the officers knew before they acted. ( Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266, 271 , 120 S.Ct. 1375 , 146 L.Ed.2d 254 .) We are required to determine whether Carruesco's reasoning resulted in a seizure that was in violation of the Fourth Amendment.	1	2004–2004
People v. Price red cal · 1991 2 sentences 2004A seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurs whenever an individual's liberty is restrained by the police, either by physical force or an assertion of authority, to which the individual submits, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would have believed he or she was not free to leave. ( People v. Soun, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 1515 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 .) Distinctions are drawn between "detentions" and "arrests," since, although both are seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional standard for permissible detentions "is of lesser degree than that applicabl 2004A seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurs whenever an individual's liberty is restrained by the police, either by physical force or an assertion of authority, to which the individual submits, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would have believed he or she was not free to leave. ( People v. Soun, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 1515 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 .) Distinctions are drawn between "detentions" and "arrests," since, although both are seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional standard for permissible detentions "is of lesser degree than that applicabl	1	2004–2004
Wilson v. Superior Court green cal · 1983 2 sentences 2004A seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurs whenever an individual's liberty is restrained by the police, either by physical force or an assertion of authority, to which the individual submits, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would have believed he or she was not free to leave. ( People v. Soun, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 1515 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 .) Distinctions are drawn between "detentions" and "arrests," since, although both are seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional standard for permissible detentions "is of lesser degree than that applicabl 2004A seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurs whenever an individual's liberty is restrained by the police, either by physical force or an assertion of authority, to which the individual submits, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would have believed he or she was not free to leave. ( People v. Soun, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 1515 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 .) Distinctions are drawn between "detentions" and "arrests," since, although both are seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional standard for permissible detentions "is of lesser degree than that applicabl	1	2004–2004
People v. Harris green cal · 1975 2 sentences 2004A seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurs whenever an individual's liberty is restrained by the police, either by physical force or an assertion of authority, to which the individual submits, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would have believed he or she was not free to leave. ( People v. Soun, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 1515 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 .) Distinctions are drawn between "detentions" and "arrests," since, although both are seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional standard for permissible detentions "is of lesser degree than that applicabl 2004A seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment occurs whenever an individual's liberty is restrained by the police, either by physical force or an assertion of authority, to which the individual submits, in circumstances in which a reasonable person would have believed he or she was not free to leave. ( People v. Soun, supra, 34 Cal.App.4th at p. 1515 , 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 822 .) Distinctions are drawn between "detentions" and "arrests," since, although both are seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the constitutional standard for permissible detentions "is of lesser degree than that applicabl	1	2004–2004
People v. Miller green nyappdiv · 1989 2 sentences 1994(Accord, State v. Deitman (Utah 1987) 739 P.2d 616 [no seizure found where defendants agreed to speak with police, produced identification, and were not held against their will during warrant check]; People v. Miller (1989) 149 A.D.2d 538 [ 539 N.Y.S.2d 809, 811 ] [temporarily holding defendant pending warrant check “never escalated to the level of a forcible stop.”]; State v. Johnson (1986) 34 Ohio App.3d 94 [ 517 N.E.2d 262 ] [request for identification and “routine warrant check” did not constitute seizure where police neither drew their guns nor ordered defendant to do anything].) The fact 1994(Accord, State v. Deitman (Utah 1987) 739 P.2d 616 [no seizure found where defendants agreed to speak with police, produced identification, and were not held against their will during warrant check]; People v. Miller (1989) 149 A.D.2d 538 [ 539 N.Y.S.2d 809, 811 ] [temporarily holding defendant pending warrant check “never escalated to the level of a forcible stop.”]; State v. Johnson (1986) 34 Ohio App.3d 94 [ 517 N.E.2d 262 ] [request for identification and “routine warrant check” did not constitute seizure where police neither drew their guns nor ordered defendant to do anything].) The fact	1	1994–1994
State v. Deitman green utah · 1987 1 sentence 1994(Accord, State v. Deitman (Utah 1987) 739 P.2d 616 [no seizure found where defendants agreed to speak with police, produced identification, and were not held against their will during warrant check]; People v. Miller (1989) 149 A.D.2d 538 [ 539 N.Y.S.2d 809, 811 ] [temporarily holding defendant pending warrant check “never escalated to the level of a forcible stop.”]; State v. Johnson (1986) 34 Ohio App.3d 94 [ 517 N.E.2d 262 ] [request for identification and “routine warrant check” did not constitute seizure where police neither drew their guns nor ordered defendant to do anything].) The fact	1	1994–1994
State v. Painter green or · 1984 2 sentences 1994(Accord, State v. Deitman (Utah 1987) 739 P.2d 616 [no seizure found where defendants agreed to speak with police, produced identification, and were not held against their will during warrant check]; People v. Miller (1989) 149 A.D.2d 538 [ 539 N.Y.S.2d 809, 811 ] [temporarily holding defendant pending warrant check “never escalated to the level of a forcible stop.”]; State v. Johnson (1986) 34 Ohio App.3d 94 [ 517 N.E.2d 262 ] [request for identification and “routine warrant check” did not constitute seizure where police neither drew their guns nor ordered defendant to do anything].) The fact 1994(Accord, State v. Deitman (Utah 1987) 739 P.2d 616 [no seizure found where defendants agreed to speak with police, produced identification, and were not held against their will during warrant check]; People v. Miller (1989) 149 A.D.2d 538 [ 539 N.Y.S.2d 809, 811 ] [temporarily holding defendant pending warrant check “never escalated to the level of a forcible stop.”]; State v. Johnson (1986) 34 Ohio App.3d 94 [ 517 N.E.2d 262 ] [request for identification and “routine warrant check” did not constitute seizure where police neither drew their guns nor ordered defendant to do anything].) The fact	1	1994–1994
State v. Johnson green ohioctapp · 1986 2 sentences 1994(Accord, State v. Deitman (Utah 1987) 739 P.2d 616 [no seizure found where defendants agreed to speak with police, produced identification, and were not held against their will during warrant check]; People v. Miller (1989) 149 A.D.2d 538 [ 539 N.Y.S.2d 809, 811 ] [temporarily holding defendant pending warrant check “never escalated to the level of a forcible stop.”]; State v. Johnson (1986) 34 Ohio App.3d 94 [ 517 N.E.2d 262 ] [request for identification and “routine warrant check” did not constitute seizure where police neither drew their guns nor ordered defendant to do anything].) The fact 1994(Accord, State v. Deitman (Utah 1987) 739 P.2d 616 [no seizure found where defendants agreed to speak with police, produced identification, and were not held against their will during warrant check]; People v. Miller (1989) 149 A.D.2d 538 [ 539 N.Y.S.2d 809, 811 ] [temporarily holding defendant pending warrant check “never escalated to the level of a forcible stop.”]; State v. Johnson (1986) 34 Ohio App.3d 94 [ 517 N.E.2d 262 ] [request for identification and “routine warrant check” did not constitute seizure where police neither drew their guns nor ordered defendant to do anything].) The fact	1	1994–1994
Rawlings v. Kentucky green scotus · 1980 1 sentence 1991(Id. at pp. 51-52 [96 L.Ed.2d at pp. 64-65].) Jeffers made it clear that mere possession of a seized item cannot be a “substitute for a factual finding that the owner of the good had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched.” (United States v. Salvucci, supra, 448 U.S. 83, 92 [65 L.Ed.2d at pp. 628-629].) “Although the method of analysis utilized in [Jeffers] does not survive Rakas, Rawlings [Rawlings v. Kentucky (1980) 448 U.S. 98 ] and Salvucci , the Supreme Court has endorsed the conclusion that [Jeffers] . . . had a reasonable expectation of privacy.	1	1991–1991
State Savings & Commercial Bank v. Anderson green cal · 1913 2 sentences 1936An identical seizure clause in the Bank Act was held constitutional in State Savings & Commercial Bank v. Anderson, 165 Cal. 437 [ 132 Pac. 755 , L. 1936An identical seizure clause in the Bank Act was held constitutional in State Savings & Commercial Bank v. Anderson, 165 Cal. 437 [ 132 Pac. 755 , L.	1	1936–1936

Where else courts name it

IL 22 (1924–2023) WA 16 (2001–2024) PA 15 (1965–2024) DC 15 (1978–2019) CA 9 (1936–2016) TX 9 (1984–2015) NC 8 (2013–2022) WI 8 (2001–2024) OR 7 (1993–2026) NH 6 (1991–2020) OH 6 (1996–2024) NY 6 (1973–2024) IN 5 (1884–2005) FL 5 (1983–2010) VA 4 (1995–2022) MA 4 (2019–2025) CO 4 (2002–2025) IA 3 (2015–2023) TN 3 (1998–2022) MO 3 (1989–2001) MI 3 (1975–2008) GA 3 (1984–1997) KS 2 (2008–2010) ID 2 (1991–2011) VT 2 (1988–2004) NV 2 (2015–2015) LA 2 (1975–2012) NM 2 (2006–2006) MN 2 (1987–1999) NJ 2 (1979–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check