search or seizure violation in California

2022(U.S. Const., 4th Amend.; People v. Barnes (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1508, 1514 .) “Evidence obtained from a search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment must be excluded from use at a criminal trial only if required by federal law.” (Barnes, at p. 1513.) A defendant may move to suppress evidence on the grounds that it was obtained as a result of an unreasonable and warrantless search. (§ 1538.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).) We review issues related to the suppression of evidence obtained from government searches and seizures under federal constitutional standards.

2021(People v. Lopez (2019) 8 Cal.5th 353, 359 ; U.S. Const., 4th Amend.) “Evidence obtained from a search or seizure in violation of the 7 Fourth Amendment must be excluded from use at a criminal trial only if required by federal law.” (People v. Barnes (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1508, 1513 .) A defendant may move to suppress evidence obtained without a warrant as unreasonable. (§ 1538.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The prosecution must demonstrate a legal justification for the search.

2021(People v. Evans (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 735, 742 .) When reviewing a ruling on a suppression motion, we consider the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision and defer to its factual findings if supported by substantial evidence.

2021(People v. Evans (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 735, 742 .) When reviewing a ruling on a suppression motion, we consider the record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision and defer to its factual findings if supported by substantial evidence.

2021(People v. Lopez (2019) 8 Cal.5th 353, 359 ; U.S. Const., 4th Amend.) “Evidence obtained from a search or seizure in violation of the 7 Fourth Amendment must be excluded from use at a criminal trial only if required by federal law.” (People v. Barnes (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1508, 1513 .) A defendant may move to suppress evidence obtained without a warrant as unreasonable. (§ 1538.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The prosecution must demonstrate a legal justification for the search.

2021(People v. Lopez (2019) 8 Cal.5th 353, 359 ; U.S. Const., 4th Amend.) “Evidence obtained from a search or seizure in violation of the 7 Fourth Amendment must be excluded from use at a criminal trial only if required by federal law.” (People v. Barnes (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1508, 1513 .) A defendant may move to suppress evidence obtained without a warrant as unreasonable. (§ 1538.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).) The prosecution must demonstrate a legal justification for the search.

1964In reply to the objection that under the facts shown there was no probable cause for arrest and that the evidence subsequently obtained was by unlawful search and seizure, the court said (p. 22) : “Appellant, however, admits that this argument is contrary to the holding in People v. Graff, 144 Cal.App.2d 199 [ 300 P.2d 837 ], which establishes the rule that in this state, eavesdropping in the absence of trespass is not a search or seizure in violation of the state Constitution.

1964In reply to the objection that under the facts shown there was no probable cause for arrest and that the evidence subsequently obtained was by unlawful search and seizure, the court said (p. 22) : “Appellant, however, admits that this argument is contrary to the holding in People v. Graff, 144 Cal.App.2d 199 [ 300 P.2d 837 ], which establishes the rule that in this state, eavesdropping in the absence of trespass is not a search or seizure in violation of the state Constitution.

2022(People v. Macabeo (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1206, 1212 .) We defer to the trial court’s findings if supported by substantial evidence, but 4 independently determine whether the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

2013There, the Supreme Court addressed subdivision (a) of section 1538.5, which -- as originally enacted and in its present form – states, inter alia, that a criminal defendant may seek suppression of evidence obtained through a search or seizure in violation of “state constitutional standards.” (Lance W., supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 893 ; § 1538.5, subd. (a)(1)(B)(v).) As the court noted, after section 28(d) abrogated that provision of section 1538.5, the Legislature amended section 1538.5 twice, once by a two- thirds majority in both houses of the Legislature.

2013(Lance W., supra, at pp. 893- 896.) Because the California Constitution provides that “[a] section of a statute may not be amended unless the section is re-enacted as amended” (Cal. Const., art.