California Court of Appeal

Juvenile court order denying defendant's motion to suppress is affirmed where: 1) the court properly found that a police officer did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights as the officer had a reasonable suspicion that defendant violated the law; 2) defendant's detention was supported by evidence that created a reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was not necessary to require strict compliance with the Harvey-Madden rule; and 3) the exclusionary rule does not result in immunity from prosecution where the charged offense can be proven with evidence from a source independent of any Fourth Amendment violation.

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/12/2009
• Published 05/12/2009

Judges

• YEGAN, Acting P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Lyn A. Woodward, Pacific Grove, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant., Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarel, Jr., Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Eric J. Kohm, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.