In a motion to suppress a search and seizure, what is the effect of the trial court's ruling on the motion?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Rabaduex, 112 Cal.App.4th 1611, 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 483 (Cal. App. 2003):
In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, we defer to the trial court's findings of fact, both express and implied, if supported by substantial evidence. However, we independently apply the pertinent legal principles to those facts to determine as a matter of law whether there has been an unreasonable search or seizure. (People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 922, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 785.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
In reviewing a finding on a suppression motion, what are the implications of the trial court's ruling on the suppression motion? (California, United States of America)
In reviewing a motion to suppress evidence, what is the effect of the trial court's ruling on the motion? (California, United States of America)
In a motion to suppress, what is the effect of the trial court's finding that a search or seizure was reasonable? (California, United States of America)
In a motion to quash service of a summons, what is the effect of the error in the trial court's ruling on the motion? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law where the trial court would have exercised its discretion not to award a motion for damages even if the trial judge was aware of the fact that the motion was being brought before the court? (California, United States of America)
In reviewing a motion to suppress, what is the effect of the trial court's finding on the motion? (California, United States of America)
On appeal from a ruling on a suppression motion, what is the effect of the finding on the suppression motion? (California, United States of America)
When a defendant makes a mid-trial motion to revoke his self represented status and have standby counsel appointed for the remainder of the trial, does the trial court have a duty to manage the trial? (California, United States of America)
Does a motion for a new trial need to be denied because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for new trial? (California, United States of America)
What is the scope of consent to search, scope of search, and whether the trial court erred by denying suppression motion? (California, United States of America)
