California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. McKay, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 236, 27 Cal.4th 601, 41 P.3d 59 (Cal. 2002):
Moreover, by removing the threat that relevant evidence will be excluded for violation of their rules, our decision today may have the salutary effect of encouraging state and local governments as well as individual police departments to seize the opportunity Atwater presents to craft careful and detailed regulations governing the ability of officers to arrest for minor
[117 Cal.Rptr.2d 251]
offenses. (See People v. Mayoff, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 1318-1319, 233 Cal.Rptr. 2, 729 P.2d 166; cf. County of Sacramento v. Lewis, supra, 523 U.S. at p. 841, fn. 5, 118 S.Ct. 1708.) Thus, eliminating the sanction of exclusion does not mean that affected individuals or the public generally are without remedy against a wayward officer. "We, the judiciary, cannot claim that we and we alone wield the only power or possess the only wisdom to enforce rules." (People v. Hoag (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1198, 1215, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 556 (cone. opn. of Morrison, J.).)[117 Cal.Rptr.2d 251]
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.