 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Kraft8/10/2000
select the appropriate rule of law, and apply the latter to the former to determine whether the rule so applied was or was not violated, on appeal we, as the reviewing court, must uphold the trial court's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. We, however, independently review the trial court's selection of the relevant legal principle and its application of the rule to the facts as found. (People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1301.) Admission of unlawfully seized evidence is not reversible error per se, but rather is subject to harmless error analysis. (E.g., People v. Rich (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1036, 1080.)
Preliminarily, we also note that the offenses of which defendant was convicted span the years 1972-1983, thus implicating the law as it existed both before and after the June 9, 1982, enactment of the truth-in-evidence provisions of Proposition 8 (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (d)). Subject to Proposition 8 are only the counts relating to victims Gambrel, Church, Nelson and DeVaul. (See People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal.3d 251, 262 [construing Proposition 8 to apply only to criminal proceedings arising out of offenses committed on or after the date it took effect].) This case brings to mind Justice Richardson's prediction, in his dissent in Smith, that "a single search conducted after the adoption of Proposition 8 which may disclose evidence of multiple crimes could be ruled valid as to certain crimes, and invalid as to others." (Id. at p. 274 (dis. opn. of Richardson, J.).) The Attorney General asks this court to overrule Smith and thereby correct the anomaly identified by Justice Richardson. He observes that, as we reasoned in Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 293-297, federal ex post facto law has, since Smith, been simplified (Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37), and it is now clear that modifying the rules concerning the admission of evidence does not violate the ex post facto clause of the federal and state Constitutions.
The trial court in this case declined to decide whether or not the provisions of Proposition 8 governed all charged counts, concluding its ruling on the suppression motion would be the same regardless of which law applied. We conclude the trial court's conclusion was correct and, for the same reason, we decline the Attorney General's invitation to reconsider Smith.
We address defendant's challenges to the various searches in chronological order:
a. Defendant's detention and arrest
Defendant acknowledges that California Highway Patrol officers properly stopped him, initially, for committing the infraction of driving on the shoulder. Nevertheless, defendant contends his subsequent arrest was unlawful because, once he had completed the field sobriety tests, probable cause did not exist to believe he had been driving under the influence . At that point, defendant argues, his detention began to be unduly prolonged and the evidence thereby discovered-including the body of Terry Gambrel and all the evidence discovered as a result-must be suppressed. We disagree.
The governing law is well settled. An arrest is valid if supported by probable cause. Probable cause to arrest exists if facts known to the arresting officer would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that an individual is guilty of a crime. (People v. Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 410.)
The following facts provide ample support for the trial court's ruling that probable cause supported defendant's arrest for driving under the influence. As noted, California Highway Patrol Officer Michael Sterling, accompanied on patrol by Sergeant Michael Howard, noticed
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|