§Why CasetextPricing

PEOPLE v. GARCIA

Appellant’s Petition for Review

35 Cited authorities

  1. Chavez v. Martinez

    538 U.S. 760 (2003)   Cited 1,247 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a failure to read Miranda warnings did not violate the respondent's constitutional rights

  2. McKune v. Lile

    536 U.S. 24 (2002)   Cited 1,252 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding the state-imposed repercussions insufficiently coercive to amount to compulsion

  3. Minnesota v. Murphy

    465 U.S. 420 (1984)   Cited 1,525 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a probationer's "general obligation to appear and answer [the probation officer's] questions truthfully did not in itself convert [the probationer's] otherwise voluntary statements into compelled ones"

  4. In re Sheena K

    40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007)   Cited 2,722 times
    Finding probationer's forfeiture properly disregarded where facially vague and overbroad probation condition could be corrected by inserting a knowledge requirement

  5. Kastigar v. United States

    406 U.S. 441 (1972)   Cited 2,162 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Government may compel grand jury testimony from witnesses over Fifth Amendment objections if the witnesses receive "use and derivative use immunity"

  6. Lefkowitz v. Turley

    414 U.S. 70 (1973)   Cited 972 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "if immunity is supplied and testimony is still refused," the courts may compel testimony "by use of civil contempt and coerced imprisonment," and the government may deprive them of employment or impose other punishments

  7. People v. Olguin

    45 Cal.4th 375 (Cal. 2008)   Cited 993 times
    Upholding a probation condition requiring a defendant to notify probation officers of any pets in the residence

  8. Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court

    57 Cal.2d 450 (Cal. 1962)   Cited 5,905 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Explaining the "rule requiring a court exercising inferior jurisdiction to follow the decisions of a court exercising a higher jurisdiction"

  9. People v. Lent

    15 Cal.3d 481 (Cal. 1975)   Cited 1,696 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a probationer who agreed to a search term cannot avoid an imminent search by refusing law enforcement permission to conduct it

  10. People v. Bravo

    43 Cal.3d 600 (Cal. 1987)   Cited 353 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “a search condition of probation that permits a search without a warrant also permits a search without ‘reasonable cause’ ”

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 485,423 times   688 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Section 1203.067 - Evaluation before grant of probation

    Cal. Pen. Code § 1203.067   Cited 119 times
    Requiring "participation in polygraph examinations, which shall be part of the sex offender management program"

  13. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer