SAN DIEGO DISTRICT ATTORNEY The Fourth Amendment and ...

examination questions are otherwise proper. (United States
v. Havens (1980) 446 U.S. 620 [64 L.Ed.2 nd 559].)
California authority prior to passage of Proposition
8 (The “Truth in Evidence Initiative”), to the effect
that evidence suppressed pursuant to a motion
brought under authority of P.C. § 1538.5 is
suppressed for all purposes (i.e., People v. Belleci
(1979) 24 Cal.3 rd 879, 887-888.), was abrogated by
Proposition 8. Now, it is clear that suppressed
evidence may be used for purposes of impeachment
should the defendant testify and lie. (People v.
Moore (1988) 201 Cal.App.3 rd 877, 883-886.)
However, inculpatory statements made by the
defendant but suppressed as a product of the
defendant’s illegal arrest may not be used to
impeach other defense witnesses. (James v. Illinois
(1990) 493 U.S. 307, 314-316 [107 L.Ed.2 nd 676].)
New Crimes Committed in Response to an Illegal Detention
or Arrest: Whether or not a detention or an arrest is lawful,
a suspect is not immunized from prosecution for any new
crimes he might commit against the officer in response. A
defendant’s violent response to an unlawful detention, such
as assaulting a police officer, may still be the source of
criminal charges. A suspect has a duty to cooperate with
law enforcement whether or not an attempt to detain or
arrest him is later held to be in violation of the Fourth
Amendment. (In re Richard G. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4 th
1252, 1260-1263.)
Expectation of Privacy: Whether a search or seizure is “unreasonable”
under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore requires the exclusion of
evidence obtained thereby, turns on “whether a person has a
constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy, that is,
whether he or she has manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the
object of the challenged search (or seizure) that society is willing to
recognize as reasonable.” (Emphasis added; People v. Robles (2000) 23
Cal.4 th 789, 794.)
© 2012 Robert C. Phillips. All rights reserved
The United States Supreme Court has held: “Our Fourth
Amendment analysis embraces two questions. First, we ask
whether the individual, by his conduct, has exhibited an actual
expectation of privacy; that is, whether he has shown that ‘he
[sought] to preserve [something] as private.’ [Citation.] . . .
8