|
Welcome to CAAJE!!!
|
Since 1958, CAAJE has continued to be a leader in the development of public safety educaton in the state of California. CAAJE represents the vast majority of the community colleges and universities that host adminstration of justice programs.
The CAAJE website provides an array of information and informative issues regarding curriculum development , Title V course outlines, student learning outcomes, unit planning, accredidation standards, and faculty development.
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Wednesday, 10 February 2010 16:47 |
|
New and Amended Statutes; Disclaimer:
The statutes listed here are not intended to cover the entire body of the Legislature's work for 2009. Only those statutes believed to be of interest to most law enforcement officers, with the concerns of prosecutors in mind, are included. Sentencing rules, typically covered better in other publications, have been avoided except when important to a new or amended offense. The statutes that are covered have been severely paraphrased, the degree of detail being dependent upon the newness, importance, and/or complexity of the statute. Although I have made a sincere effort to avoid taking any part of a statute out of context, it is strongly recommended that the unedited statute be consulted before attempting to use it either in the field or the courtroom. The effective date of each new or amended statute is January 1, 2010, unless otherwise indicated.
|
|
Last Updated on Wednesday, 10 February 2010 16:52 |
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Wednesday, 10 February 2010 16:23 |
|
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTES:
Interrogating Out-Of-Custody Suspects Who Invoke:
I've been preaching for some time that "anticipatory invocations" are legally ineffective. In other words, attempts to invoke one's Miranda rights either [1] before an interrogation occurs or is even imminent, or [2] before being taken into custody, may be ignored, allowing the officer to again seek a Miranda waiver at some later time. But some officers are using this theory to justify continuing an interrogation of an out-of-custody suspect despite attempts by the suspect to invoke during the interrogation. The reasoning goes that if such an anticipatory invocation is legally ineffective, then attempts by an out-of-custody to invoke may be ignored altogether and the interrogation continued. As reasonable as this argument sounds, I strongly believe it is wrong. However, the only case I had that specifically held this tactic to be illegal (People v. Garcia (Mar. 11, 2009) 90 Cal.Rptr.3rd 440.) was depublished. So I took some time to research the issue further: Here's what I found: Although a Miranda invocation may not be effective when made during a non-custodial
|
|
Last Updated on Friday, 19 February 2010 16:28 |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Wednesday, 10 February 2010 16:42 |
|
Miranda Admonishments:
Advising an in-custody suspect that he has a right to the assistance of counsel as a part of a Miranda admonishment is supposed to include telling him that this right is available "before and during" the intended interrogation. Case law in California has allowed us to get away with forgetting to include either one of the "before" or the "during" parts (People v. Wash (1993) 6 Cal.4th 215, 236-237; People v. Kelly (1990) 51 Cal.3rd 931, 947-949.), but not both. (People v. Lujan (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1389.) This having been said, there is presently before the United States Supreme Court a case where the issue is whether failing to specifically tell an in-custody suspect that he's entitled to the assistance of counsel "during" the interrogation is a problem. (Florida v. Powell; 08-1175.) If the tone of the oral arguments before the High Court is any indication (as it typically is), then the justices appear to be on the verge of holding that an in-custody suspect must specifically be told that he's entitled to the assistance of counsel "during" the interrogation. So if you're not already doing this, I strongly suggest you make a point of doing so for now on.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
Written by Administrator
|
|
Saturday, 07 July 2007 09:54 |
|
Depublished Case; Miranda: When an Out-Of-Custody Suspect Invokes:
On April 1, 2009 (Legal Update Vol. 14, No. 4, pg. 2), I briefed People v. Garcia (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1649, which held, in effect, that when a "detained" suspect invokes his rights under Miranda, even though he is not yet in custody (i.e., hasn't been arrested), he has effectively triggered his Fifth Amendment self-incrimination protections and you must therefore terminate any attempts to question him, at least for the time-being. As an "anticipatory invocation," you should be allowed to reinitiate questioning again at some later time (see People v. Buskirk (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1436, 1448-1449.). But under Garcia, because he is invoking his self-incrimination rights, you are required to stop any attempts to interrogate him at that time. I have passed this rule onto several of you since Garcia was published. But Garcia has since been "depublished,"
|
|
Last Updated on Wednesday, 10 February 2010 16:17 |
|
Read more...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
Copyright © 2010 CAAJE. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
Who's Online
We have 2 guests online
|