What is the test for a motion to suppress a search warrant application brought by Castaneda, who was stopped by a police officer investigating illegal parking?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Castaneda, 35 Cal.App.4th 1222, 42 Cal.Rptr.2d 18 (Cal. App. 1995):
Castaneda contends (1) no justification existed to support his detention in 1989; (2) the detention, if justified, was unduly prolonged rendering his subsequent arrest unreasonable; and (3) placing him in custody [35 Cal.App.4th 1227] instead of permitting him to post bail was improper. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we must accept all facts in favor of the ruling, including all reasonable inferences and deductions, if supported by substantial evidence. (See People v. Miranda (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 917, 922, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 785.) We emphasize "the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security is the guiding principle...." (People v. Grant (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1451, 1458, 266 Cal.Rptr. 587, internal quotation marks omitted.)
An officer has every right to talk to anyone he encounters while regularly performing his duties, such as investigating illegal parking (People v. Dickey (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 952, 954-955, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 44) or cars parked in lots late at night (People v. Sandoval (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 958, 962, 211 Cal.Rptr. 1). Until the officer asserts some restraint on the contact's freedom to move,
Page 21
"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.
