52 California opinions name it 4 courts 1955–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lance W.green2 sentences2021Code, § 1538.5, subd. (a)(1)(A), (2).) Although Penal Code section 1538.5 is “the exclusive procedure by which a defendant may seek suppression of evidence obtained in a search or seizure that violates ‘state constitutional standards,’ a court may exclude the evidence on that basis only if exclusion is also mandated by the federal exclusionary rule applicable to evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” (In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 896 ; People v. Lazlo (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1063 , 1069–1070.) In probation revocation proceedings, the Fourth Amendment typically does not c 2018Thus, we must 'view the facts upon which the suppression motions were submitted in the light most favorable to the People, drawing therefrom all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court's order denying the motions.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Dominguez (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 345 , 353, 247 Cal.Rptr. 81 ; see also People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668 , 673, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 981 P.2d 1019 .) Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding that Appellant Freely and Voluntarily Consented to the Blood Draw "[A] court may exclude ... evidence [pursuant to section 1538.5 ] only if exclusion is | 20 | 31 |
Mapp v. Ohiogreen2 sentences1994DISCUSSION (2) The federal exclusionary rule, when it applies, requires the suppression of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the *1012 Constitution of the United States. ( Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, 648 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 1086 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 ]; Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383 [ 58 L.Ed. 652 , 34 S.Ct. 341 ], overruled on other grounds in Elkins v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 206 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 ].) The rule has been described by the court that created it as the subject of warm debate, "unaided, unhappily, by any convi 1994DISCUSSION (2) The federal exclusionary rule, when it applies, requires the suppression of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the *1012 Constitution of the United States. ( Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, 648 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 1086 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 ]; Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383 [ 58 L.Ed. 652 , 34 S.Ct. 341 ], overruled on other grounds in Elkins v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 206 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 ].) The rule has been described by the court that created it as the subject of warm debate, "unaided, unhappily, by any convi | 4 | 7 |
United States v. Calandragreen2 sentences1994DISCUSSION (2) The federal exclusionary rule, when it applies, requires the suppression of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the *1012 Constitution of the United States. ( Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, 648 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 1086 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 ]; Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383 [ 58 L.Ed. 652 , 34 S.Ct. 341 ], overruled on other grounds in Elkins v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 206 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 ].) The rule has been described by the court that created it as the subject of warm debate, "unaided, unhappily, by any convi 1994DISCUSSION (2) The federal exclusionary rule, when it applies, requires the suppression of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the *1012 Constitution of the United States. ( Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, 648 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 1086 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 ]; Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383 [ 58 L.Ed. 652 , 34 S.Ct. 341 ], overruled on other grounds in Elkins v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 206 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 ].) The rule has been described by the court that created it as the subject of warm debate, "unaided, unhappily, by any convi | 4 | 4 |
United States v. Leongreen2 sentences1994DISCUSSION (2) The federal exclusionary rule, when it applies, requires the suppression of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the *1012 Constitution of the United States. ( Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, 648 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 1086 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 ]; Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383 [ 58 L.Ed. 652 , 34 S.Ct. 341 ], overruled on other grounds in Elkins v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 206 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 ].) The rule has been described by the court that created it as the subject of warm debate, "unaided, unhappily, by any convi 1994DISCUSSION (2) The federal exclusionary rule, when it applies, requires the suppression of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the *1012 Constitution of the United States. ( Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, 648 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 1086 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 ]; Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383 [ 58 L.Ed. 652 , 34 S.Ct. 341 ], overruled on other grounds in Elkins v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 206 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 ].) The rule has been described by the court that created it as the subject of warm debate, "unaided, unhappily, by any convi | 3 | 5 |
People v. Woodsgreen2 sentences2018Thus, we must 'view the facts upon which the suppression motions were submitted in the light most favorable to the People, drawing therefrom all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court's order denying the motions.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Dominguez (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 345 , 353, 247 Cal.Rptr. 81 ; see also People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668 , 673, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 981 P.2d 1019 .) Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding that Appellant Freely and Voluntarily Consented to the Blood Draw "[A] court may exclude ... evidence [pursuant to section 1538.5 ] only if exclusion is 2018Thus, we must 'view the facts upon which the suppression motions were submitted in the light most favorable to the People, drawing therefrom all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court's order denying the motions.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Dominguez (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 345 , 353, 247 Cal.Rptr. 81 ; see also People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668 , 673, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 981 P.2d 1019 .) Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding that Appellant Freely and Voluntarily Consented to the Blood Draw "[A] court may exclude ... evidence [pursuant to section 1538.5 ] only if exclusion is | 3 | 3 |
People v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2018Thus, we must 'view the facts upon which the suppression motions were submitted in the light most favorable to the People, drawing therefrom all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court's order denying the motions.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Dominguez (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 345 , 353, 247 Cal.Rptr. 81 ; see also People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668 , 673, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 981 P.2d 1019 .) Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding that Appellant Freely and Voluntarily Consented to the Blood Draw "[A] court may exclude ... evidence [pursuant to section 1538.5 ] only if exclusion is 2018Thus, we must 'view the facts upon which the suppression motions were submitted in the light most favorable to the People, drawing therefrom all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court's order denying the motions.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Dominguez (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 345 , 353, 247 Cal.Rptr. 81 ; see also People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668 , 673, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 981 P.2d 1019 .) Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding that Appellant Freely and Voluntarily Consented to the Blood Draw "[A] court may exclude ... evidence [pursuant to section 1538.5 ] only if exclusion is | 3 | 3 |
People v. Cahangreen2 sentences2018In People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434 , 282 P.2d 905 , we adopted the exclusionary rule for violations of the state constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, declining to follow the high court's refusal to adopt a federal exclusionary rule in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) 338 U.S. 25 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 . 2018In People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434 , 282 P.2d 905 , we adopted the exclusionary rule for violations of the state constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, declining to follow the high court's refusal to adopt a federal exclusionary rule in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) 338 U.S. 25 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 . | 2 | 4 |
Weeks v. United Statesred2 sentences1994DISCUSSION (2) The federal exclusionary rule, when it applies, requires the suppression of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the *1012 Constitution of the United States. ( Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, 648 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 1086 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 ]; Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383 [ 58 L.Ed. 652 , 34 S.Ct. 341 ], overruled on other grounds in Elkins v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 206 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 ].) The rule has been described by the court that created it as the subject of warm debate, "unaided, unhappily, by any convi 1994DISCUSSION (2) The federal exclusionary rule, when it applies, requires the suppression of evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the *1012 Constitution of the United States. ( Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, 648 [ 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, 1086 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 84 A.L.R.2d 933 ]; Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383 [ 58 L.Ed. 652 , 34 S.Ct. 341 ], overruled on other grounds in Elkins v. United States (1960) 364 U.S. 206 [ 4 L.Ed.2d 1669 , 80 S.Ct. 1437 ].) The rule has been described by the court that created it as the subject of warm debate, "unaided, unhappily, by any convi | 2 | 4 |
People v. Harrisongreen2 sentences2016In accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, 110 , we note that (1) “although section 1538.5 continues to provide the exclusive procedure by which a defendant may seek suppression of evidence obtained in a search or seizure that violates ‘state constitutional standards,’ a court may exclude the evidence on that basis only if exclusion is also mandated by the federal exclusionary rule applicable to evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment” (People v. Lazlo (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1072 (Lazlo)), and (2) even assuming inculpatory evidence was obtained in this case i 2012(See People v. Nixon, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 692 [“the proscription against the use of suppressed evidence in [Zimmerman] was not based on any constitutional mandate, but rather, the language of Penal Code section 1538.5”].) Our Supreme Court has observed: “[Although section 1538.5 continues to provide the exclusive procedure by which a defendant may seek suppression of evidence obtained in a search or seizure that violates ‘state constitutional standards,’ a court may exclude the evidence on that basis only if exclusion is also mandated by the federal exclusionary rule applicable to evid | 2 | 3 |
People v. Linggreen2 sentences2018As previously noted, evidence *806 may be suppressed pursuant to section 1538.5 only if the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated and suppression is mandated by the federal exclusionary rule. ( In re Lance W. , supra , 37 Cal.3d at p. 896 , 210 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 694 P.2d 744 .) "[C]ase law has rejected contentions that a failure to advise an arrestee of the tests available or to honor the arrestee's choice of a particular test amounts to a constitutional violation. [Citations.]" ( Ritschel v. City of Fountain Valley (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 107 , 119, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 48 ; see also Harri 2018As previously noted, evidence *806 may be suppressed pursuant to section 1538.5 only if the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated and suppression is mandated by the federal exclusionary rule. ( In re Lance W. , supra , 37 Cal.3d at p. 896 , 210 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 694 P.2d 744 .) "[C]ase law has rejected contentions that a failure to advise an arrestee of the tests available or to honor the arrestee's choice of a particular test amounts to a constitutional violation. [Citations.]" ( Ritschel v. City of Fountain Valley (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 107 , 119, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 48 ; see also Harri | 2 | 3 |
People v. Medinagreen2 sentences1994To the extent that some remedy appropriate to loss of trial witnesses (cf. Honore v. Superior Court, supra, 70 Cal.2d 162, 168-169 ) or evidence (cf. People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 893-894 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 799 P.2d 1282 ]) might have existed, we first observe that she did not seek any such remedy below. 1994To the extent that some remedy appropriate to loss of trial witnesses (cf. Honore v. Superior Court, supra, 70 Cal.2d 162, 168-169 ) or evidence (cf. People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 893-894 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 799 P.2d 1282 ]) might have existed, we first observe that she did not seek any such remedy below. | 2 | 2 |
Kaplan v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences1984The Martin holding became known as the “vicarious exclusionary rule.” (See Kaplan v. Superior Court (1971) 6 Cal.3d 150, 153, 155, 160, fn. 8 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 649 , 491 P.2d 1 ].) Six years after Cahan and Martin , the United States Supreme Court made the federal exclusionary rule binding on the states via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1984The Martin holding became known as the “vicarious exclusionary rule.” (See Kaplan v. Superior Court (1971) 6 Cal.3d 150, 153, 155, 160, fn. 8 [ 98 Cal.Rptr. 649 , 491 P.2d 1 ].) Six years after Cahan and Martin , the United States Supreme Court made the federal exclusionary rule binding on the states via the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. | 2 | 2 |
RITSCHEL v. City of Fountain Valleygreen2 sentences2026(Fiscalini, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1645, fn. 7 [“Mere noncompliance with the implied consent law . . . does not implicate any constitutional issue or invoke any statutory exclusionary rule.”]; accord, People v. Brannon (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 971, 975 [“Evidence obtained in violation of a statute is not inadmissible per se unless the statutory violation also has a constitutional dimension.”]; see also People v. Vannesse (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 440, 447 [holding that “failure to give an advisement in compliance with the implied consent law does not mandate the suppression of the test result” be 2018As previously noted, evidence *806 may be suppressed pursuant to section 1538.5 only if the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were violated and suppression is mandated by the federal exclusionary rule. ( In re Lance W. , supra , 37 Cal.3d at p. 896 , 210 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 694 P.2d 744 .) "[C]ase law has rejected contentions that a failure to advise an arrestee of the tests available or to honor the arrestee's choice of a particular test amounts to a constitutional violation. [Citations.]" ( Ritschel v. City of Fountain Valley (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 107 , 119, 40 Cal.Rptr.3d 48 ; see also Harri | 1 | 4 |
Wolf v. Coloradored2 sentences2018In People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434 , 282 P.2d 905 , we adopted the exclusionary rule for violations of the state constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, declining to follow the high court's refusal to adopt a federal exclusionary rule in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) 338 U.S. 25 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 . 2018In People v. Cahan (1955) 44 Cal.2d 434 , 282 P.2d 905 , we adopted the exclusionary rule for violations of the state constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, declining to follow the high court's refusal to adopt a federal exclusionary rule in Wolf v. Colorado (1949) 338 U.S. 25 , 69 S.Ct. 1359 , 93 L.Ed. 1782 . | 1 | 3 |
People v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2018Thus, we must 'view the facts upon which the suppression motions were submitted in the light most favorable to the People, drawing therefrom all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court's order denying the motions.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Dominguez (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 345 , 353, 247 Cal.Rptr. 81 ; see also People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668 , 673, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 981 P.2d 1019 .) Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding that Appellant Freely and Voluntarily Consented to the Blood Draw "[A] court may exclude ... evidence [pursuant to section 1538.5 ] only if exclusion is 2018Thus, we must 'view the facts upon which the suppression motions were submitted in the light most favorable to the People, drawing therefrom all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court's order denying the motions.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Dominguez (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 345 , 353, 247 Cal.Rptr. 81 ; see also People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668 , 673, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 981 P.2d 1019 .) Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding that Appellant Freely and Voluntarily Consented to the Blood Draw "[A] court may exclude ... evidence [pursuant to section 1538.5 ] only if exclusion is | 1 | 3 |
People v. Maikhiogreen2 sentences2016Under the California Constitution “evidence sought to be introduced at a criminal trial is subject to suppression as the fruit of an unconstitutional search and seizure only if exclusion is . . . mandated by the federal exclusionary rule applicable to evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment [of the United States Constitution].” (People v. Maikhio (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1074, 1075 .) But Floyd identifies no evidence recovered by police during the search of his home, nor any attempt by the prosecution to introduce such evidence at trial. 2015“Under the current provisions of the California Constitution, evidence sought to be introduced at a criminal trial is subject to suppression as the fruit of an unconstitutional search and seizure ‘only if exclusion is . . . mandated by the federal exclusionary rule applicable to evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment [of the United States Constitution].’” (People v. Maikhio (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1074, 1089 , quoting In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 896 ; see Cal. Const., art I, § 28, subd. (f)(2).) “The [Fourth] Amendment says nothing about suppressing evidence obtained in violat | 1 | 3 |
People v. Lazlogreen2 sentences2021Code, § 1538.5, subd. (a)(1)(A), (2).) Although Penal Code section 1538.5 is “the exclusive procedure by which a defendant may seek suppression of evidence obtained in a search or seizure that violates ‘state constitutional standards,’ a court may exclude the evidence on that basis only if exclusion is also mandated by the federal exclusionary rule applicable to evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” (In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 896 ; People v. Lazlo (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1063 , 1069–1070.) In probation revocation proceedings, the Fourth Amendment typically does not c 2016In accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, 110 , we note that (1) “although section 1538.5 continues to provide the exclusive procedure by which a defendant may seek suppression of evidence obtained in a search or seizure that violates ‘state constitutional standards,’ a court may exclude the evidence on that basis only if exclusion is also mandated by the federal exclusionary rule applicable to evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment” (People v. Lazlo (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1072 (Lazlo)), and (2) even assuming inculpatory evidence was obtained in this case i | 1 | 2 |
People v. Nixongreen2 sentences2016In accordance with People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal. 4th 106, 110 , we note that (1) “although section 1538.5 continues to provide the exclusive procedure by which a defendant may seek suppression of evidence obtained in a search or seizure that violates ‘state constitutional standards,’ a court may exclude the evidence on that basis only if exclusion is also mandated by the federal exclusionary rule applicable to evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment” (People v. Lazlo (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1063, 1072 (Lazlo)), and (2) even assuming inculpatory evidence was obtained in this case i 2012(See People v. Nixon, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 692 [“the proscription against the use of suppressed evidence in [Zimmerman] was not based on any constitutional mandate, but rather, the language of Penal Code section 1538.5”].) Our Supreme Court has observed: “[Although section 1538.5 continues to provide the exclusive procedure by which a defendant may seek suppression of evidence obtained in a search or seizure that violates ‘state constitutional standards,’ a court may exclude the evidence on that basis only if exclusion is also mandated by the federal exclusionary rule applicable to evid | 1 | 2 |
Herring v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015(Ibid.) On the latter point, the court stated: "[E]ven assuming, without deciding, that the state statutory violation that led to the nonconsensual extraction of defendant's blood . . . constituted a Fourth Amendment violation, application of the federal exclusionary rule would not be appropriate for such a violation." (Robinson, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1124 .) This was so because the exclusionary rule applies only " 'where its deterrence benefits outweigh its "substantial social costs," ' " and thus suppression of evidence " 'has always been [the court's] last resort.' " (Id. at p. 1124.) " ' 2015(Ibid.) On the latter point, the court stated: "[E]ven assuming, without deciding, that the state statutory violation that led to the nonconsensual extraction of defendant's blood . . . constituted a Fourth Amendment violation, application of the federal exclusionary rule would not be appropriate for such a violation." (Robinson, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 1124 .) This was so because the exclusionary rule applies only " 'where its deterrence benefits outweigh its "substantial social costs," ' " and thus suppression of evidence " 'has always been [the court's] last resort.' " (Id. at p. 1124.) " ' | 1 | 2 |
People v. Brannongreen1 sentence2026(Fiscalini, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1645, fn. 7 [“Mere noncompliance with the implied consent law . . . does not implicate any constitutional issue or invoke any statutory exclusionary rule.”]; accord, People v. Brannon (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 971, 975 [“Evidence obtained in violation of a statute is not inadmissible per se unless the statutory violation also has a constitutional dimension.”]; see also People v. Vannesse (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 440, 447 [holding that “failure to give an advisement in compliance with the implied consent law does not mandate the suppression of the test result” be | 1 | 1 |
People v. Fiscalinigreen1 sentence2026(Fiscalini, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1645, fn. 7 [“Mere noncompliance with the implied consent law . . . does not implicate any constitutional issue or invoke any statutory exclusionary rule.”]; accord, People v. Brannon (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 971, 975 [“Evidence obtained in violation of a statute is not inadmissible per se unless the statutory violation also has a constitutional dimension.”]; see also People v. Vannesse (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 440, 447 [holding that “failure to give an advisement in compliance with the implied consent law does not mandate the suppression of the test result” be | 1 | 1 |
People v. Vannessegreen1 sentence2026(Fiscalini, supra, 228 Cal.App.3d at p. 1645, fn. 7 [“Mere noncompliance with the implied consent law . . . does not implicate any constitutional issue or invoke any statutory exclusionary rule.”]; accord, People v. Brannon (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 971, 975 [“Evidence obtained in violation of a statute is not inadmissible per se unless the statutory violation also has a constitutional dimension.”]; see also People v. Vannesse (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 440, 447 [holding that “failure to give an advisement in compliance with the implied consent law does not mandate the suppression of the test result” be | 1 | 1 |
People v. Madridgreen1 sentence2025A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person’s premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed.” ( Rakas, supra, 439 U.S. at pp. 133–134 [cleaned up]; People v. Madrid (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1888, 1895 [The same standard applies in California: “[T]he courts of this state may exclude evidence seized pursuant to an unlawful search or seizure ‘only if exclusion is also mandated by the federal exclusionary rule applicable to evidence seized in violation of the Fourth A | 1 | 1 |
| In Re DJgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Letner and Tobingreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheelergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Illinois v. Lidstergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Franciscogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Terry v. Ohiogreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Brignoni-Poncegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Delaware v. Prousegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Texasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Samson v. Californiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hudson v. Michigangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.green | 1 | 1 |
| Vernonia School District 47J v. Actongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scottgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arizona v. Evansgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ohio v. Robinettegreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Kinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Dominguez
green
2 sentences2018Thus, we must 'view the facts upon which the suppression motions were submitted in the light most favorable to the People, drawing therefrom all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court's order denying the motions.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Dominguez (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 345 , 353, 247 Cal.Rptr. 81 ; see also People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668 , 673, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 981 P.2d 1019 .) Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding that Appellant Freely and Voluntarily Consented to the Blood Draw "[A] court may exclude ... evidence [pursuant to section 1538.5 ] only if exclusion is 2018Thus, we must 'view the facts upon which the suppression motions were submitted in the light most favorable to the People, drawing therefrom all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court's order denying the motions.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Dominguez (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 345 , 353, 247 Cal.Rptr. 81 ; see also People v. Woods (1999) 21 Cal.4th 668 , 673, 88 Cal.Rptr.2d 88 , 981 P.2d 1019 .) Substantial Evidence Supports the Finding that Appellant Freely and Voluntarily Consented to the Blood Draw "[A] court may exclude ... evidence [pursuant to section 1538.5 ] only if exclusion is | 3 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Ted Dudek, A/K/A Ted Landers
green
2 sentences1994(Cf. United States v. Dudek, supra, 530 F.2d 684, 691 .) Head cites no authority that loss of a potentially exculpatory trial witness justified invocation of the federal exclusionary rule. 1994(Cf. United States v. Dudek, supra, 530 F.2d 684, 691 .) Head cites no authority that loss of a potentially exculpatory trial witness justified invocation of the federal exclusionary rule. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Honore v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1994To the extent that some remedy appropriate to loss of trial witnesses (cf. Honore v. Superior Court, supra, 70 Cal.2d 162, 168-169 ) or evidence (cf. People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 893-894 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 849 , 799 P.2d 1282 ]) might have existed, we first observe that she did not seek any such remedy below. 1994To the extent that some remedy appropriate to loss of trial witnesses (cf. Honore v. Superior Court, supra, 70 Cal.2d 162, 168-169 ) or evidence (cf. People v. Medina (1990) 51 Cal.3d 870, 893-894 [ 274 Cal. Rptr. 849 , 799 P.2d 1282 ]) might have existed, we first observe that she did not seek any such remedy below. (3) More fundamentally, this post-guilty-plea appeal is cognizable only to the extent allowed by the suppression statute (Pen. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
People v. Scott
green
1 sentence2026Feghhi does not dispute that the facts recited in Marquez’s affidavit related to the traffic crash made “it substantially probable” (Scott, supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 483 ) that evidence of a DUI offense would be found in a blood test to obtain Feghhi’s BAC. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Alderman v. United States
green
1 sentence2025Coconspirators and codefendants have been accorded no special standing.” (Alderman v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 165 , 171–172.) “The proponent of a motion to suppress has the burden of establishing that his own Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the challenged search or seizure.” (Rakas, at p. 131, fn. 1.) 7 “When the standing issue is not litigated in the trial court, the appellate court can reach a legal conclusion as to whether the defendants had standing if the record is adequate. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Rakas v. Illinois
green
1 sentence2025A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person’s premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed.” ( Rakas, supra, 439 U.S. at pp. 133–134 [cleaned up]; People v. Madrid (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1888, 1895 [The same standard applies in California: “[T]he courts of this state may exclude evidence seized pursuant to an unlawful search or seizure ‘only if exclusion is also mandated by the federal exclusionary rule applicable to evidence seized in violation of the Fourth A | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Coleman
green
1 sentence2021(People v. Coleman (1975) 13 Cal.3d 867 , 876–877, fn. 8 [revocation of probation “ ‘is not part of a criminal prosecution and thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply,’ ” including the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule]; People v. Harrison 6 (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 803, 811 [“federal law does not require application of the exclusionary rule to probation revocation hearings”].) At a probation revocation hearing, to warrant suppression of evidence in violation of the federal Constitution, the police conduct must be “ ‘so egregious as to offend “the ‘tra | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Howard green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Swain v. Alabama red | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Wheeler green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Kelly green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Maryland v. King green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Davis v. United States green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| United States v. Drayton green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| People v. Robinson green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Rise v. State of Oregon green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| CCPOA v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Byers v. Justice Court for Ukiah Judicial District green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Elkins v. United States green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Rochin v. California green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Williams v. New York green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| United States v. Ross green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| New York v. Belton red | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.