A Santa Barbara death penalty case appealed to the state Supreme Court elicits discussion on a multitude of critical legal issues, including permissible photo lineups and live identifications, speedy trial issues after defense counsel seeks repeated delays, and a defendant’s right to testify in his own defense.
The 2DCA affirmed that stalking laws apply even when threats are communicated indirectly through third parties. The case involved a defendant convicted for sending threatening messages to the victim's family, highlighting the need for comprehensive protections for stalking victims. This ruling emphasizes the seriousness of ...
In a dramatic robbery at a Camarillo AT&T store, defendants forced employees at gunpoint into a secluded vault room to load stolen goods. The court upheld a kidnapping conviction, asserting that the 40-foot movement of victims significantly increased their risk of harm. Conflicts among courts over the definition of ...
In the case of Rosenbaum v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit ruled that police officers violated the Fourth Amendment by allowing a K-9 to continue biting an unarmed suspect who had surrendered. The court found that video evidence supported the plaintiff’s claim of excessive force. This case emphasizes the legal limits on..
In Cuevas v. City of Tulare, the Ninth Circuit ruled that passengers in a stopped vehicle are seized under the Fourth Amendment. However, the court upheld qualified immunity for officers who injured bystander Rosa Cuevas while returning fire at a suspect. The case raises significant questions about the balance of officer...
In a significant ruling, the Third District Court of Appeal determined whether visible loose cannabis in a vehicle, despite being a legal amount, constitutes probable cause for further search. The court emphasized considering the totality of circumstances in justifying officers’ actions.
In a San Jose case, an appeals court reversed the trial court, ruling that deadly force against an armed man who posed no immediate threat violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The case underscores the need for clear commands and the principle that mere possession of a weapon is insufficient justification for lethal force.
The Ninth Circuit recently took up the issue of using a jailhouse informant to gather information from a suspect who had already invoked their right to counsel. Miranda rulings over the years have explored this delicate balance, and we have a new case here that offers additional guidance.
In a recent San Bernardino case that clarifies important legal interpretations of the “asportation element” of kidnapping, the court ruled on whether moving a victim short distances in a home during a robbery meets the “substantial distance” requirement for the crime. This will be important in kidnapping charging decisions
An officer stops a car for illegally tinted windows. Teen driver is unlicensed and his 22-year-old passenger has a joint on his lap. Do you search the car? What’s your rationale? Is it legal since the passenger is 22? Is a joint an open container? Read on for these answers and more to use on the street or in the courtroom.
