What are my rights in CA?

[Jimmybacon43]

So I read this little article on ACLU.org

https://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

I am curious if there are any differences in laws here in CA, specifically regarding personal, home, and vehicle searches. Are there any circumstances in which police can search you or detain you against your will and what those circumstances would be exactly?

It says in the article that police can pat you down if they suspect you of carrying a weapon, what would make them suspect that?

Also can someone explain to me probable cause and how that works? Are there exceptions to any of these restrictions on searches in the form of probable causes or suspicion?

Thanks for your help. Genuinely curious what my rights are in CA, not trying to stir up any cop bashing or anything like that.

[TRICKSTER]

I don't understand why you would ask this question here.

No prob, it irritates me too. A lot of cops are just dumb street cops after all. They're good at beating people up and telling people what to do, not understanding every intricacy of the law.

[Jimmybacon43]

Wow Trickster, you did some digging to find that quote

[nickbackouris]

Haha, sounds like this threads closed.

"Let's ask the cops to summarize the entire academy in a few paragraphs, then spin why they type and start an internet debate."

[Jimmybacon43]

Haha, sounds like this threads closed.

"Let's ask the cops to summarize the entire academy in a few paragraphs, then spin why they type and start an internet debate."

I was never trying to start an internet debate, I was just looking for information.

[mixicus]

In light of the quote Trickster found, I'll keep my responses brief.

"Are there any circumstances in which police can search you or detain you against your will and what those circumstances would be exactly?"
Yes, among others: reasonable suspicion or probable cause a crime has been or is being committed and terms of parole/probation. Passengers of vehicle are also considered detained during a traffic stop.

"It says in the article that police can pat you down if they suspect you of carrying a weapon, what would make them suspect that?"
What you are looking for is covered in Terry v. Ohio.

"Are there exceptions to any of these restrictions on searches in the form of probable causes or suspicion?" Exceptions include terms of probation/parole, consent, warrant (though PC would be in the warrant application), plain view, exigency,...

Be careful on taking actions based on an internet article. There’s an error or two in the article you linked to. Example: “If you are not under arrest, you have the right to calmly leave.” Nope. If you are detained, you are not free to go (i.e. passenger during a traffic stop).

[Jimmybacon43]

Thank you Mixicus, that's all I wanted, just a little bit of information.

[mixicus]

OP-
Though a typical officer is well versed in the area, responses that can fit in this little dialog box do not do the topic of "search and seizure" justice. This topic is given ~12 hours of instruction in the basic academy (Learning Domain 16). It is also the subject of regular update trainings (due to new case law) put out by DOJ, CA POST and DA's. These trainings can get so specific as to deal with one court case on a topic as narrow as the search of a cell phone during an arrest, as an example. Officers also get regular feedback when submitting cases or filing search warrants.

[Samuelx]

I don't understand why you would ask this question here.

Originally Posted by Jimmybacon43
No prob, it irritates me too. A lot of cops are just dumb street cops after all. They're good at beating people up and telling people what to do, not understanding every intricacy of the law.

What Trickster said. Jackwagon now on Ignore...

[SVT-40]

Buy this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Title-CONSTITUTIONAL-J-D-Devallis-Rutledge/dp/1933778156

Duvallis Rutledge Is probably the best LEO trainer in California.

[RickD427]

Buy this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Title-CONSTITUTIONAL-J-D-Devallis-Rutledge/dp/1933778156

Duvallis Rutledge Is probably the best LEO trainer in California.

I'll second the recommendation for Duvallis' book. Mr. Rutledge is very well regarded as a law enforcement trainer.

Your question really cannot be answered in a short fashion. You're asking a really big question here.

Here's a couple of responsive points (these are real general, a bunch of exceptions apply):

If a LEO is going to "invade" your privacy in some way (detain you, require to to speak with them, or to search you or your stuff) they need a source of legal standing. There's a whole bunch of sources of legal standing out there. The degree of permitted intrusion is normally defined by the source of standing.

If there is no intrusion, the LEO is free to ask questions and to look around pretty much as they please. Just like any other private person.

"Reasonable Suspicion" that a person is engaged in criminal activity permits their detention.

"Probable Cause" that evidence or contraband is in a vehicle permits the search of that vehicle.

A person can be searched incident to their arrest.

"Probable Cause" , standing alone, will not permit the search of a person, or a residence. However "Probable Cause" will allow the arrest of a person, and then they can be searched incident to that arrest. The courts have gone so far as to hold that a search incident to an arrest can occur before the arrest.(refer to People v Limon)

Folks don't have to be arrested for something really big in order for the search authority to exist. The arresting charge can really be quite minor. Like driving without a seatbelt (refer to Atwater v Lago Vista).

As a general rule, it's real easy to search a person, and it's real hard to search their home.

It used to be real easy to search a phone, or laptop computer. Just a few months ago, it became difficult.

Most folks, including quite a few LEOs don't understand the Miranda warning. It's not a required part of an arrest (although juvenile detainees are required to be given a portion of the warning upon detention).

The ACLU document that you reference in your posting is pretty straightforward. I only take issue with the advice contained in it that if you are not under arrest, that you are then free to leave. It's probably only semantics, but there are actually three conditions possible: 1) You're under arrest (meaning that you're in custody to answer a criminal charge) - You can't go. 2) You're being involuntarily detained, but no charge is pending - You can't go. This is where Terry v Ohio comes into play. 3) The officer has no source of lawful standing to either arrest or detain you - You're free to go. It looks like the ACLU author omitted #2. It's an important distinction. The officer needs "Probable Cause" to arrest you, but only "Reasonable Suspicion" to detain you.

[jdubs71]

Open mouth insert foot!

[Librarian]

Seems to have been answered, and pretty civil, so let's allow this to rest before something more exciting happens.