30.06.2014 Views

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

1104, 1120 [104 Cal. Rptr. 3d 727, 224 P.3d 55]; see Bell v.<br />

Wolfish (1979), 441 U.S. 520 at p. 559 [“Courts must consider the<br />

scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is<br />

conducted, the justification for initiating it, <strong>and</strong> the place in which<br />

it is conducted.”]’.)” (People v. Boulter (2011) 199 Cal.App.4 th<br />

761.)<br />

Whren v. United States, supra, involved the use of a “pretext” to make a<br />

traffic stop (i.e., using a traffic infraction when the officers’ real<br />

motivation involved an issue not supported by the necessary reasonable<br />

suspicion), the U.S. Supreme Court deciding such a tactic was lawful so<br />

long as there was some lawful reason justifying the stop. (See “Pretext<br />

Stops,” above.)<br />

<strong>The</strong> Rule of Whren:<br />

Per Whren, so long as there is some lawful justification for<br />

making the stop, the officers’ subjective motivations are<br />

irrelevant. (Ibid; see also United States v. Mir<strong>and</strong>a-<br />

Guerena (9 th Cir. 2006) 445 F.3 rd 1233.)<br />

Arguably, the same theory applies to a search or<br />

seizure. So long as the search or seizure is lawful, it<br />

should matter not whether the officer, in his or her<br />

own mind, believed it to be lawful.<br />

<strong>The</strong> “pretext stop” theory of Whren v. United States<br />

applies to civil parking violations as well as any criminal<br />

violation. (United States v. Choudhry (9 th Cir. 2006) 461<br />

F.3 rd 1097.)<br />

Also, a law enforcement officer’s actions, so long as<br />

objectively reasonable, might still result in the admissibility<br />

of illegally seized evidence because of the “good faith”<br />

exception. (United States v. Leon (1984) 468 U.S. 897 [82<br />

L.Ed.2 nd 677]; see also People v. Hull (1995) 34<br />

Cal.App.4 th 1448.) (See “Good Faith,” below.)<br />

And see Arkansas v. Sullivan (2001) 532 U.S. 769 [149<br />

L.Ed.2 nd 944]: Because Whren involves an interpretation<br />

of the <strong>Fourth</strong> <strong>Amendment</strong>, individual states are not<br />

entitled to impose a stricter interpretation upon law<br />

enforcement unless they choose to use their own state<br />

constitution (i.e., “Independent State Grounds”) as their<br />

authority.<br />

© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved<br />

246

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!