Stoner v. California

5 Citing briefs

  1. PEOPLE v. MACABEO

    Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits

    Filed October 30, 2015

    (Cockrell, supra, 63 Cal.2d at p. 666.) ” In addition to Agnello, Cockrell cites United States v. Rabinowitz (1950) 339 US. 56 [70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed.2d 653] [search of a one-room office upheld after a warrantarrest in that office], Stoner v. California (1964) 376 U.S. 483 [84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856] [search of hotel room in California several days before arrest in Nevada wasnotincidentto arrest], Preston v. United States (1964) 376 U.S. 367 [84 S.Ct. 881, 11 L-Ed.2d 777] [search of car towed to police station after arrest was too remote in place or time]. 23 whenthere is the fact of an arrest.'° Rawlings remainsthe only case where the high court has allowed a search right before the formality of arrest.

  2. The People, Respondent,v.Graham Reid, Appellant.

    Brief

    Filed November 18, 2014

    See Kamins, New York Search & Seizure § 4.03[5] at 4-148 (2008 Ed.) (“as long as there is probable cause for the arrest, it is not fatal if the search occurs immediately before, rather than with the formal arrest”); see also Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 486 (1964) (a search “can be incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the -16- arrest”). The Court noted, in dictum, that “[i]t may be said that the search and arrest must constitute a single res gestae,” or “one event.”

  3. PAUL et al v. OBAMA et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint

    Filed May 19, 2014

    In the Ferguson case, for example, the Supreme Court concluded a Government program in which a hospital tested pregnant women’s urine samples for drug use and then re- ported positive tests to the police was an unreasonable search prohibited by the Fourth Amend- ment. Ferguson v City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 84–86 (2001).33 Second, decisions such as Smith and Miller have not overturned precedents such as Ston- er v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 487–89 (1964) (recognizing hotel guest’s right to control room and exclude police from searching even when he was not in room, notwithstanding fact that maids or repairmen might enter room without his knowledge). Cf. O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 717 (1987) (recognizing, post-Smith, potential for government employee to have reasonable expectation of privacy in his workspace even though other people may have frequent access to it); Randolph, 547 U.S. at 106 (holding, post-Smith, that one occupant of shared residence may not consent to search over objection of co-resident who is present and voices objection); see also Douglas v. Dobbs, 419 F.3d 1097, 1102 (10th Cir. 2005) (finding, post-Smith, reasonable expec- tation of privacy in prescription drug records in hands of third party).

  4. Oregon Prescription Drug Monitoring Program v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration

    Response and Reply to Cross Motion for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiffs-Intervenors 42 , Motion for Summary Judgment 27 Oral Argument requested.

    Filed September 23, 2013

    In a variety of contexts under the Fourth Amendment, access to a protected area for one limited purpose does not render that area suddenly unprotected from government searches. See, e.g., Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98–99 (1990) (holding that “an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his host’s home” even though “he and his possessions will not be disturbed by anyone but his host and those his host allows inside” (emphasis added)); Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 487–90 (1964) (implicit consent to janitorial personnel to enter motel room does not amount to consent for police to search room); Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 616–17 (1961) (search of a house invaded tenant’s Fourth Amendment rights even though landlord had authority to enter house for some purposes). Prescription records stored in the PDMP are much like emails stored in an email provider’s servers.

  5. Brandi Garris et al v. City of Los Angeles

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Compel Answers to Interrogatories of Plaintiff Garris

    Filed November 1, 2017

    F (PLAx) 2012 WL 10450139 at 3 20 19 23 In Re Convergent Technologies Securities Litigation 24 (N.D. Cal. 1985) 108 F.R.D 328,332 15 25 26 27 28 In re Harmonic, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2007) Secs. Litig. 245 F.R.D 424,427 2 li JOINT STIPULATION Case 2:17-cv-01452-MWF-E Document 29 Filed 11/01/17 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:758 1 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife 2 (1992) 504 U.S. 555, 560-561,112 S. Ct. 2130,110 L. Ed. 2d 351 2 3 A1assachusettsv. EPA 4 (2007) 549 U.S. 497, 516, 127 S. Ct. 1438, 167 L. Ed. 2d 248 2 5 A1ellon v. Cooper-Jarrett 6 (1970) 424 F. 2d 499,500 2 7 Nestle Food Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. 8 (D. N. J. 1990) 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 25 9 Newcomb v. Brennan 10 (7th Cir. 1977) 558 F. 2d 825, 829 10 11 O'Connell v. Chapman Univ. 12 (C.D. Cal. 2007) 245 F.R.D. 646, 650 24 13 Santa A10nica Food Not Bombs v. City of Santa Monica 14 (9th Cir. 2006) 450 F.3d 1022, 1025 1 15 Soc. Sampling v. Dennis Garberg & Assoc. 16 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2014) 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195171 25 17 Stoner v. California 18 (1964) 376 U.S. 483, 484 S. Ct. 889, 11 L. Ed. 2d 856 1 19 Sullivan v. Personalized Media Communs., LLC 20 (N.D. Cal. 2016) 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS129090*9 2 21 Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods. 22 (9th Cir. 2005) 406 F. 3d 625, 635 2 23 Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions 24 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) 2 25 Thornhill Pub. CO. V. General Tel. & Elec. Corp. 26 (9th Cir. 1979) 594 F.2d 730,733 2 27 28 III JOINT STIPULATION Case 2:17-cv-01452-MWF-E Document 29 Filed 11/01/17 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:759 1 U. S. V. Bulacan 2 156 F.3d 963,967-68,971,973 (9th Gir. 1998) 12 3 U. S. v. McCarty 4 648 F.3d 820, 830, 833-34 (9th Gir. 2011) 1 5 United States v. Singleton 6 (9th Cir. 1993) 987 F. 2d 1444, 1447, 1993 1 7 Warth v. Seldin B 9 10 (1975) 422 U.S. 490, 499,95 S. Ct. 2197, 45 L. Ed. 2d 343 23 Statutes 16 California Government Code 11 Section 811.2 10 12 Section 54988 , 11 13 California Health and Safety Code 14 Section 17920.1 , , , , 10 15 Federal Rule Civil Procedure FRCP 26(b) 20 17 FRGP 33(b)(3) 26 IB FRCP 34 17