challenged searches standard in California

2022(See Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138 [stating that appellate courts “examin[e] the challenged searches under a standard of objective reasonableness without regard to the underlying intent or motivation of the officers involved”]; Rosales, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 330 [officer initially approached the suspect “with the (aborted) intention to ask some investigatory questions”].) Second, the justification for a detention and search is determined based on the information available to the officer.

1991Furthermore, it has long been held that in determining suppression motions, courts generally examine “the challenged searches under a standard of objective reasonableness without regard to the underlying intent or motivation of the officers involved.” (Scott v. United States (1977) 436 U.S. 128, 138 [ 56 L.Ed.2d 168, 178 , 98 S.Ct. 1717 ] [a case affirming admission of wiretap evidence under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 despite law enforcement agent’s failure to make good faith efforts to minimize interception of nonnarcotics related calls].) Scott relied in part on U

1991Furthermore, it has long been held that in determining suppression motions, courts generally examine “the challenged searches under a standard of objective reasonableness without regard to the underlying intent or motivation of the officers involved.” (Scott v. United States (1977) 436 U.S. 128, 138 [ 56 L.Ed.2d 168, 178 , 98 S.Ct. 1717 ] [a case affirming admission of wiretap evidence under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 despite law enforcement agent’s failure to make good faith efforts to minimize interception of nonnarcotics related calls].) Scott relied in part on U

1991Furthermore, it has long been held that in determining suppression motions, courts generally examine “the challenged searches under a standard of objective reasonableness without regard to the underlying intent or motivation of the officers involved.” (Scott v. United States (1977) 436 U.S. 128, 138 [ 56 L.Ed.2d 168, 178 , 98 S.Ct. 1717 ] [a case affirming admission of wiretap evidence under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 despite law enforcement agent’s failure to make good faith efforts to minimize interception of nonnarcotics related calls].) Scott relied in part on U

1989The court need only to review “the challenged searches under a standard of objective reasonableness without regard to the underlying intent or motivation of the officers involved.” (Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138 [ 56 L.Ed.2d 168, 178 , 98 S.Ct. 1717 ], fn. omitted; United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 U.S. 218, 236 [ 38 L.Ed.2d 427, 441 , 94 S.Ct. 467 ]; People v. Le (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 186, 193-195 [ 215 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure (2d ed. 1987) § 3.2(b), pp. 566-570; cf. DiPasquale v. State (1979) 43 Md.App. 574 [ 406 A.2d 665 ].) In short, Raney’s legal

1989The court need only to review “the challenged searches under a standard of objective reasonableness without regard to the underlying intent or motivation of the officers involved.” (Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138 [ 56 L.Ed.2d 168, 178 , 98 S.Ct. 1717 ], fn. omitted; United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 U.S. 218, 236 [ 38 L.Ed.2d 427, 441 , 94 S.Ct. 467 ]; People v. Le (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 186, 193-195 [ 215 Cal.Rptr. 106 ]; 1 LaFave, Search and Seizure (2d ed. 1987) § 3.2(b), pp. 566-570; cf. DiPasquale v. State (1979) 43 Md.App. 574 [ 406 A.2d 665 ].) In short, Raney’s legal

2022(See Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138 [stating that appellate courts “examin[e] the challenged searches under a standard of objective reasonableness without regard to the underlying intent or motivation of the officers involved”]; Rosales, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 330 [officer initially approached the suspect “with the (aborted) intention to ask some investigatory questions”].) Second, the justification for a detention and search is determined based on the information available to the officer.

2022(See Scott v. United States (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138 [stating that appellate courts “examin[e] the challenged searches under a standard of objective reasonableness without regard to the underlying intent or motivation of the officers involved”]; Rosales, supra, 211 Cal.App.3d at p. 330 [officer initially approached the suspect “with the (aborted) intention to ask some investigatory questions”].) Second, the justification for a detention and search is determined based on the information available to the officer.

1986The court’s conclusion is clear: “ ‘Since it is the fact of custodial arrest which gives rise to the authority to search, it is of no moment that [the officer] did not indicate any subjective fear of the respondent or that he did not himself suspect that respondent was armed.’ [Citation.] The Courts of Appeals which have considered the matter have likewise generally followed these principles, first examining the challenged searches under a standard of objective reasonableness without regard to the underlying intent or motivation of the officers involved. [Fn. omitted.]” (Scott v. United States

1986The court’s conclusion is clear: “ ‘Since it is the fact of custodial arrest which gives rise to the authority to search, it is of no moment that [the officer] did not indicate any subjective fear of the respondent or that he did not himself suspect that respondent was armed.’ [Citation.] The Courts of Appeals which have considered the matter have likewise generally followed these principles, first examining the challenged searches under a standard of objective reasonableness without regard to the underlying intent or motivation of the officers involved. [Fn. omitted.]” (Scott v. United States