Legal Opinion

Department of Transportation v. State Personnel Board

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 20, 2009No. B210334PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BOREN, P. J.

The Fourth Amendment “has never been interpreted to proscribe the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.” (Stone v. Powell (1976) 428 U.S. 465, 486 [49 L.Ed.2d 1067, 96 S.Ct. 3037].) In this case, a state transportation employee is seeking to apply the exclusionary rule in a civil disciplinary proceeding, to bar introduction of incriminating evidence seized from his car and his pockets by the California Highway Patrol. We conclude that the exclusionary rule does not apply. Although an illegal search took place, it occurred…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Stone v. PowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Elkins v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
  3. United States v. JanisSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Lopez-MendozaSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. People v. Lance W.California Supreme Court · 1985

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Beckley v. Bd. Of Admin CalPERS CA1/4California Court of Appeal · 2013
  2. California Science Center v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  3. Beckley v. Bd. of Admin., CalPERSCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  4. Beckley v. Bd. of Admin., CalPERSCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013
  5. Fett v. Medical Bd. of CACalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016

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

Powered by the Exa API