MEMORANDUM CONFIDENTIAL Attorney Work Product TO: Stephanie Klugman FROM: Samantha Student RE: Roland Webber – Definition of locked vehicle under California burglary statute and possible felony conviction DATE: September 9, 2017 FACTS Police arrested Roland Webber after he entered a van with the intent to steal its contents. Webber did not break any of the locked windows or doors to enter the van. Instead, Webber entered the vehicle by removing pieces of duct tape holding a thick plastic sheet over a broken window. All of the other van windows and doors were locked. QUESTION PRESENTED Does removing duct tape holding a thick plastic sheet over a broken window constitute breaking into a locked vehicle under section 459 of the California Penal Code? SHORT ANSWER Yes. Removing duct tape holding a thick plastic sheet over a broken window constitutes breaking into a locked vehicle within the meaning of section 459 because force is required to remove the tape. DISCUSSION Pursuant to section 459 of the California Penal Code, every person who enters a vehicle when the doors are locked with the intent to commit any felony is guilty of burglary. Cal. Penal Code (West 2017). The California Court of Appeal emphasized that the “[l]egislature specifically required locking as an essential …show more content…
. . [such that] some force [is] required to break the seal to permit entry.” Lamont R., 200 Cal. App. 3d at 247 (quoting People v. Massey, 241 Cal. App. 2d 812, 817 (1966)). In Lamont R., a chain and hook contraption securing a trailer door with a broken shipment seal failed to lock the vehicle. Id. The defendants gained access to the trailers by unhooking the chains, unfastening the latches, and opening a door. Id. at 246. The court found that the vehicle was not locked, because no force was needed and no seals were broken to gain entry. Id. at
In Caulfield the court concluded the defendant had no absolute right to enter his brother’s house because he had moved out two weeks ago and could no longer be considered an occupant. • Analysis o Dale Hawthorn’s Case Hawthorn’s case is similar to Sears, Davenport, and Caulfield as Hawthorn had quit occupying the apartment for some time (more than several days) before committing the offense. Additionally, all three of those cases find no absolute right though each had some familial type relationship with those occupying building. Davenport is also similar because just like Hawthorn, the defendant in Davenport willingly gave up his key to the domicile.
The trial court convicted Ms. Borne under 26 U.S.C. 5845(f)(3) and sentenced her to 12-months in prison. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the conviction was proper based on the evidence presented at trial. According to the court of appeals, the prosecution proved—beyond a reasonable doubt—that Ms. Borne’s items: (1) could be readily assembled in a destructive device and (2) were designed, or intended for use as a destructive device. This was a reversible error. A.
This detention was both unlawful and without the consent of Driver. There are two distinct reasons why Driver’s false imprisonment claim is true. First, there was a threat to his liberty by Merchant threatening to call the police. Second, although Merchant originally had shopkeeper’s privilege, this privilege only allows Merchant to detain Driver for a reasonable time period. First, Driver was detained.
P alleges excessive force and false arrest. P alleges that he was giving his friend a cane when MOS arrested him. P alleges that he did not have any drugs instead his friend (non-party) had Xanax pills. MOS state that UC observed P in hand to hand drug transaction. P was unable to make bail and remained incarcerated for 6 days.
Code 905 states “ [a] person is guilty of burglary in the second degree when, with the intent to steal, he knowingly and unlawfully enters or remains in a dwelling.” In this case, it is likely that Brenda Lee is guilty of burglary in the second degree. The first issue under the statue is whether
David Leon Riley, a gangster who is in the Lincoln Park Gang in San Diego, CA was involved in a rival gang shooting. The rival of Riley’s gang shot at the Lincoln Park Gang and then got into Riley’s vehicle, stole it, and drove off. Riley had his cell phone in his possession when he was apprehended. So a detective analyzed the videos and photographs of Riley making gang signs and other gang indicia that were stored on the phone to verify whether Riley was gang affiliated. On August 22, 2009, the police pulled Riley over which he was driving a different car which later they found out that he was driving on expired license registration tags.
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983) Capsule Summary: Seizing a person’s luggage for an extended period until a warrant is obtained violates the Fourth Amendment as beyond the limits of a Terry stop, but, a sniff by a narcotics dog does not constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Facts: The respondent Raymond Place was stopped by Federal Agents (DEA) upon his arrival into LaGuardia Airport on a Friday afternoon. The respondent refused to consent to the search of his luggage. His luggage was seized by the agents under suspicion they contained narcotics. The respondent was informed the agents would be obtaining a search warrant from a judge.
760, 264 S.E.2d 258 (1979) (Westlaw) II. Parties: Reece/accused/plaintiff below/appellant here v. State of Georgia/prosecution/defendant below/respondent here (Reece v. State) III. Objectives of the Parties: The State wants to convict Reece for theft by receiving stolen property. Reece wants to avoid conviction and sentencing (Reece v. State).
B. The police officer tried to make it look like he had a probable cause to search Rodriguez car. C. I believe that Rodriguez was to prevail in court, because the Police officer should not of allowed his dog to sniff Rodriguez car without a warrant and after the dog found something he said he had probable cause but without the dog he didn 't even had a probable cause.
On 3/22/17 at 10:57 AM, Safety Specialist Matthew Marciano notified Security Account Manager Enmanuel Cabrera that, a truck driver drop his trailer onto his 5 wheel while attempting to pull out of dock door 9. Then, A/M Cabrera made his way to location of the accident to gather the information needed and take pictures. Upon arriving at the location of the incident, A/M Cabrera made contact with Celadon driver Robert Michael Rasppery, driving Celadon tractor 570620, and attempting to pull Celadon trailer 253920. Upon speaking to the driver, he stated that he attempt to depart out of door dock 9 with the trailer in question, and did not properly attach to the trailer to the tractor, so the trailer suddenly detached and fell on to his 5th
On October 21st 2015 at approximately 0945 hours, Investigator Akins and Investigator Smith assisted board of Parole officers in the apprehension of absconder Douglas Scott Stillman. Mr. Stillman was taken to the Investigation's office, where he was made aware of his Miranda rights. Mr. Stillman waived his rights and agreed to speak with investigators about Case 15-22230, which lists him as a suspect involving Theft of Property. Mr. Stillman stated that he had taken the antique doors to refinish them for Ms. “Kay”. Mr. Stillman stated he had stored the doors at his house located at 27723 Nichols Loop Rd.
It’s been a rough week for me and my family like just last night my dad's store was robbed we don't know who did it but my parents are freaking out mom mostly. Her job doesn't pay much so we relied on my dad's store to make the rest of the money and know that it's been robbed it doesn't seem all that hopeful. Then I get a call, it's my best friend Tom.
Research - Legal Content California Kidnapping Laws Penal Code Section 207-210 – California Kidnapping See, California Penal Code (PC) Sections 207 – 210 to learn about the laws of California Kidnapping. The California PC Sections 207, 208, 209, and 210 describe ‘kidnapping’ as the act of forcibly taking another individual against his/her will. Overview of P.C. Sections 207/208/209/210 Here below are the different forms of kidnapping as per the Penal Code Sections: Under PC section 207, ‘abducting’ is the act of forcibly holding, taking or confining a person against his or her self-will. By instilling fear and using force, the Defendant moves the victim from one place to another.
Home invasion; for example, I am home alone with my ten years old son, and two men with guns break in and tied us up. They search through my possessions, and fill a duffle bag full of electronic, money, and jewelry and offer no good explanation for why they are there. The circumstances may convince a prosecutor that the person entered in order to commit a crime; thus finding the defendant guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in excess of ten years (Reinhart, 2014, 3). Strangulation; for example, I was sitting at my desk, a man walk behind me an start applying pressure to my throat blocking my air flow, causing me to struggle for breath. If the prosecutor fined that his actions result in serious physical injury, then he will be
The offense of first degree burglary consist of eight elements. The first element includes “breaking”, in context of a dwelling household, and is described by using force to enter without permission. The second element, entering, is defined as come or go into with any part of a human body. The third element, “without consent”, and can be described as not having permission from a certain person. A dwelling household or sleeping apartment is used to describe a building where one or more live, and the building has no business relation.