How have the courts dealt with the issue of improper search and seizure?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Cleland, E063603 (Cal. App. 2016):
Defendant appealed and, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and a brief statement of the facts, and identifying two potential arguable issues: (1) whether the police violated defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures when it detained him for having hand-to-hand contact with a known probationer; and (2) whether the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights when it conducted a warrantless seizure of a container in his pocket.
Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
Page 5
The judgment is affirmed.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
