Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 1975–1999 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gustafson v. Floridagreen2 sentences1999Applying the Robinson-Gustafson rule (United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 U.S. 218 [ 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 ]; Gustafson v. Florida (1973) 414 U.S. 260 [ 94 S.Ct. 488 , 38 L.Ed.2d 456 ]), the appellate panel concluded "a full body search might properly be made as an incident to a lawful arrest. `It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a "reasonable" search under that Amendmen 1999Applying the Robinson-Gustafson rule (United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 U.S. 218 [ 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 ]; Gustafson v. Florida (1973) 414 U.S. 260 [ 94 S.Ct. 488 , 38 L.Ed.2d 456 ]), the appellate panel concluded "a full body search might properly be made as an incident to a lawful arrest. `It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a "reasonable" search under that Amendmen | 1 | 4 |
People v. Lance W.green2 sentences1989(In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 887 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 694 P.2d 744 ].) Accordingly, we look to the once rejected Robinson-Gustafson rule to determine if the evidence at issue should have been suppressed. *1248 In United States v. Robinson, supra, 414 U.S. 218 , the court held that a full body search might properly be made as an incident to a lawful arrest. 1989(In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 887 [ 210 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 694 P.2d 744 ].) Accordingly, we look to the once rejected Robinson-Gustafson rule to determine if the evidence at issue should have been suppressed. *1248 In United States v. Robinson, supra, 414 U.S. 218 , the court held that a full body search might properly be made as an incident to a lawful arrest. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences1999(United States v. Edwards (1974) 415 U.S. 800, 803 [ 94 S.Ct. 1234, 1237 , 39 L.Ed.2d 771 ] [“. . . searches and seizures that could be made on the spot at the time of arrest may legally be conducted later when the accused arrives at the place of detention”].) Accordingly, Schaffer was authorized to conduct a full body search, regardless of any evidentiary or safety considerations. 1999(United States v. Edwards (1974) 415 U.S. 800, 803 [ 94 S.Ct. 1234, 1237 , 39 L.Ed.2d 771 ] [“. . . searches and seizures that could be made on the spot at the time of arrest may legally be conducted later when the accused arrives at the place of detention”].) Accordingly, Schaffer was authorized to conduct a full body search, regardless of any evidentiary or safety considerations. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Laiwared2 sentences1989Prior to the passage of Proposition 8, the evidence of the cocaine would have been suppressed under People v. Longwill, supra, 14 Cal.3d 943 (overruled on other grounds in People v. Laiwa (1983) 34 Cal.3d 711, 728 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 669 P.2d 1278 ]), where it was held that a full body search of a defendant who was not necessarily going to be incarcerated was impermissible under California Law (Id., at p. 952; and see, also, People v. Maher (1976) 17 Cal.3d 196, 199, 203 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 550 P.2d 1044 ].) In so holding, the state’s high court specifically refused to adopt the federal Ro 1989Prior to the passage of Proposition 8, the evidence of the cocaine would have been suppressed under People v. Longwill, supra, 14 Cal.3d 943 (overruled on other grounds in People v. Laiwa (1983) 34 Cal.3d 711, 728 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 669 P.2d 1278 ]), where it was held that a full body search of a defendant who was not necessarily going to be incarcerated was impermissible under California Law (Id., at p. 952; and see, also, People v. Maher (1976) 17 Cal.3d 196, 199, 203 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 550 P.2d 1044 ].) In so holding, the state’s high court specifically refused to adopt the federal Ro | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mahergreen2 sentences1989Prior to the passage of Proposition 8, the evidence of the cocaine would have been suppressed under People v. Longwill, supra, 14 Cal.3d 943 (overruled on other grounds in People v. Laiwa (1983) 34 Cal.3d 711, 728 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 669 P.2d 1278 ]), where it was held that a full body search of a defendant who was not necessarily going to be incarcerated was impermissible under California Law (Id., at p. 952; and see, also, People v. Maher (1976) 17 Cal.3d 196, 199, 203 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 550 P.2d 1044 ].) In so holding, the state’s high court specifically refused to adopt the federal Ro 1989Prior to the passage of Proposition 8, the evidence of the cocaine would have been suppressed under People v. Longwill, supra, 14 Cal.3d 943 (overruled on other grounds in People v. Laiwa (1983) 34 Cal.3d 711, 728 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 669 P.2d 1278 ]), where it was held that a full body search of a defendant who was not necessarily going to be incarcerated was impermissible under California Law (Id., at p. 952; and see, also, People v. Maher (1976) 17 Cal.3d 196, 199, 203 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 550 P.2d 1044 ].) In so holding, the state’s high court specifically refused to adopt the federal Ro | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sanchezgreen2 sentences1987“Proposition 8 ... eliminate^] a judicially created remedy for violations of the search and seizure provisions of the federal or state Constitutions, through the exclusion of evidence so obtained, except to the extent that exclusion remains federally compelled.” (In re Lance W., supra, at pp. 886-887; People v. Sanchez (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 343, 347 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 53 ].) In United States v. Robinson, supra, 414 U.S. 218 , the United States Supreme Court held a police officer has the unqualified authority to conduct a full body search incident to a lawful arrest. 1987“Proposition 8 ... eliminate^] a judicially created remedy for violations of the search and seizure provisions of the federal or state Constitutions, through the exclusion of evidence so obtained, except to the extent that exclusion remains federally compelled.” (In re Lance W., supra, at pp. 886-887; People v. Sanchez (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 343, 347 [ 220 Cal.Rptr. 53 ].) In United States v. Robinson, supra, 414 U.S. 218 , the United States Supreme Court held a police officer has the unqualified authority to conduct a full body search incident to a lawful arrest. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Robinson
red
2 sentences1999Applying the Robinson-Gustafson rule (United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 U.S. 218 [ 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 ]; Gustafson v. Florida (1973) 414 U.S. 260 [ 94 S.Ct. 488 , 38 L.Ed.2d 456 ]), the appellate panel concluded "a full body search might properly be made as an incident to a lawful arrest. `It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a "reasonable" search under that Amendmen 1999Applying the Robinson-Gustafson rule (United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 U.S. 218 [ 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 ]; Gustafson v. Florida (1973) 414 U.S. 260 [ 94 S.Ct. 488 , 38 L.Ed.2d 456 ]), the appellate panel concluded "a full body search might properly be made as an incident to a lawful arrest. `It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a "reasonable" search under that Amendmen | 4 | 1975–1999 |
People v. Longwill
yellow
2 sentences1989Prior to the passage of Proposition 8, the evidence of the cocaine would have been suppressed under People v. Longwill, supra, 14 Cal.3d 943 (overruled on other grounds in People v. Laiwa (1983) 34 Cal.3d 711, 728 [ 195 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 669 P.2d 1278 ]), where it was held that a full body search of a defendant who was not necessarily going to be incarcerated was impermissible under California Law (Id., at p. 952; and see, also, People v. Maher (1976) 17 Cal.3d 196, 199, 203 [ 130 Cal.Rptr. 508 , 550 P.2d 1044 ].) In so holding, the state’s high court specifically refused to adopt the federal Ro 1985(Id., at p. 952.) The case at bench is factually analogous to People v. Longwill, supra, 14 Cal.3d 943 , since the arresting officer conducted a custodial search of appellant at the time of his arrest for public intoxication. | 2 | 1985–1989 |
People v. Demetrius A.
green
2 sentences1999Applying the Robinson-Gustafson rule (United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 U.S. 218 [ 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 ]; Gustafson v. Florida (1973) 414 U.S. 260 [ 94 S.Ct. 488 , 38 L.Ed.2d 456 ]), the appellate panel concluded "a full body search might properly be made as an incident to a lawful arrest. `It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a "reasonable" search under that Amendmen 1999Applying the Robinson-Gustafson rule (United States v. Robinson (1973) 414 U.S. 218 [ 94 S.Ct. 467 , 38 L.Ed.2d 427 ]; Gustafson v. Florida (1973) 414 U.S. 260 [ 94 S.Ct. 488 , 38 L.Ed.2d 456 ]), the appellate panel concluded "a full body search might properly be made as an incident to a lawful arrest. `It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a "reasonable" search under that Amendmen | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Stout v. City of Porterville
green
2 sentences1987(Gustafson v. Florida, supra, 414 U.S. at pp. 265-266 [38 L.Ed.2d at pp. 461-462].) Defendant contends that the Robinson-Gustafson rule can have no application in the present case because “the California Legislature has explicitly provided that a person detained pursuant to Penal Code section 647(ff) is not arrested but instead is ‘place[d] ... in civil protective custody. . . . ’” However, this court has impliedly stated that section 647, subdivision (fl), does not preclude an arrest: “If the police determine probable cause exists for believing a person comes within the provisions of subdivis 1987(Gustafson v. Florida, supra, 414 U.S. at pp. 265-266 [38 L.Ed.2d at pp. 461-462].) Defendant contends that the Robinson-Gustafson rule can have no application in the present case because “the California Legislature has explicitly provided that a person detained pursuant to Penal Code section 647(ff) is not arrested but instead is ‘place[d] ... in civil protective custody. . . . ’” However, this court has impliedly stated that section 647, subdivision (fl), does not preclude an arrest: “If the police determine probable cause exists for believing a person comes within the provisions of subdivis | 1 | 1987–1987 |