Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

People v. Miller

California Supreme Court

Decided May 19, 1972No. Crim. 15749Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BURKE, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur with the result reached by the majority, for I agree that the warrantless search of the pocket of Miller’s overcoat at the police station violated his reasonable expectation of privacy and that the search cannot be upheld as incident to an arrest for receiving stolen property because there was not probable cause to believe he committed that offense. Moreover, the theory that it was incident to an arrest for that offense was not presented in the trial court and may not be urged for the first time on appeal.

I disagree, however, with dictum by the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Brinegar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  3. Beck v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  4. People v. MaddoxCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
  5. People v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API