I have had one opportunity to observe the California Supreme Court first hand as they received oral argument on a number of cases. The court, including Brown mostly consists of very competent justices possessed of first rate intellects. My only reservation would be with the extent of her familiarity with Federal law.
Well, she certainly understands the U.S. Constitution, and from her record, seems to try to protect it. This shows her stance re: the 4th...
http://www.nctimes.net/news/2002/20020305/53425.html
In a decision narrowing Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the California Supreme Court upheld the arrest of a bicyclist who did not have identification when he was pulled over for pedaling in the wrong direction on a one-way street.
The justices, ruling 6-1 Monday, also said the methamphetamine an officer found on the Los Angeles County bicyclist after the arrest could be used against him in court. Conrad McKay was sentenced to nearly three years for the drug charge after being stopped for a California vehicle code infraction punishable by a $100 fine.
The high court followed a U.S. Supreme Court decision in April that validated a Texas motorist's arrest for not being buckled up ---- a 5-4 ruling saying police can arrest and handcuff people for minor traffic offenses.
Monday's decision, the second this year from the California justices limiting the Fourth Amendment rights of motorists or bicyclists to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, upheld a 1959 law allowing officers to arrest and search vehicle-code offenders who do not have identification.
"We conclude, in accordance with the United States Supreme Court precedent, that custodial arrests for fine-only offenses do not violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice Marvin R. Baxter wrote for the majority.
McKay's lawyer, Richard L. Fitzer of Los Angeles, said the decision, "is probably the price we're paying for 9-11" ---- a reference to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The justices said McKay could have been arrested or searched had he committed a minor traffic infraction while he was driving a car because driving and bicycling are subject to "the same rules of the road."
The court, however, left it to the "judgment of the arresting officer" on whether to arrest or follow a "cite-and-release procedure" whereby the violator is ticketed and released.
In a lone dissent, Justice Janice Rogers Brown argued that the decision gives police too much power by granting officers the right to focus on minorities in what she termed "unreviewable discretion to select the target of such enforcement activity."
The 34-year-old McKay, who is white, has served his sentence. Police found the drugs in one of his socks. He could not be located Monday for comment.
Brown said even if the law allows for the arrest of somebody who doesn't have a driver's license or other photo identification, authorities should not have unlimited power to search a defendant who has committed such a minor infraction.
The decision, she said, allows officers to "push past the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment."
The majority, meanwhile, said that, contrary to Fitzer's argument, the law does not require officers in the street to conduct "sufficient inquiries" to "accept verifiable oral evidence of identity."
Monday's decision is the second time this year California's justices have granted law enforcement authorities broad search-and-seizure powers.
In January, by a 4-3 vote, the justices ruled that law enforcement may conduct warrantless searches on motorists who do not possess identification or proof they own the vehicle, even if they are not arrested.
The justices ruled that, prior to an arrest, authorities could search vehicles for such documentation "within a vehicle where such documentation reasonably may be expected to be found."
State Deputy Attorney General Thomas C. Hsieh, who argued before the justices for McKay's conviction to stand, said Brown's "concerns of racial profiling are just not a part of this case." He added that, if McKay had identification, "He wouldn't be in trouble at all."
The case decided Monday is People v. McKay, S091421. January's case is People v. Arturo D., S085213. The U.S. Supreme Court controlling case is Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408.
3/5/02