May 12, 2008
Baggy Pants--a Fashion Statement not Probable Cause
In In re Enrique S., California's Fifth District Court of appeal found an insufficient basis to conduct a patdown for weapons. A .pdf copy of the Court of Appeal's opinion can be downloaded by clicking here. The arresting officer asserted that the juvenile subject's baggy clothing made it possible for him to hide a weapon, but could not articulate any reason why they believed the minor actually possessed a weapon. A search of the minor yielded an illegal knife. While the juvenile court correctly noted that "90 percent of teenagers wear baggy clothing," the denial of the suppression motion was found to be error by the Court of Appeal. I was pleased that the Court of Appeal agreed with my reasoning. This is another example of why suppression motions should be brought at the trial level.
Posted by Tim Warriner at 07:27 AM
November 26, 2006
Latest Victory! Appeals Court Finds Improper Exclusion from Drug Treatment
It's nice when the Court of Appeal agrees with you and publishes their decision. This is especially true when your client will get out of prison and be permitted to participate in a drug treatment program. In People v. Muldrow (5th DCA, No. 048923) Mr. Muldrow was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, and admitted four prior prison terms. He was sentenced to state prison for seven years. On appeal, we contended that the trial court erred in finding that a parole hold and the expectation that he would return to prison for a parole violation made him ineligible for Prop 36 drug treatment (Penal Code section 1210.1). The appellate court agreed and vacated the sentence. A defendant is unamenable for drug treatment if he is unavailable to participate due to incarceration. Here, it was not certain that Mr. Muldrow would be unavailable because the parole violation was not even proved at the time of sentencing, and parole could have been reinstated.
Posted by Tim Warriner at 07:59 AM