Legal Opinion

People v. Hudson

California Supreme Court

Decided June 19, 2006No. S122816PublishedCited by 128 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*1006Opinion

KENNARD, J.

A conviction of any of the offenses involving fleeing from a pursuing peace officer’s motor vehicle requires, among other things, that the officer’s vehicle be “distinctively marked.” (Veh. Code, §§ 2800.1, subd. (a), 2800.2, subd. (a), 2800.3, subd. (a).) We granted review in this case to address two issues. First, what factors should be considered in determining whether a pursuing peace officer’s motor vehicle is “distinctively marked”? Second, must a trial court on its own initiative define that statutory phrase?

We conclude that a peace officer’s vehicle is distinctively…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. People v. SmitheyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  2. People v. LoeunCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1997
  3. Murillo v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1998
  4. People v. AndrewsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1989
  5. People v. EstradaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1995

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

3Cited by128 opinions

  1. People v. RundleCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Shirk v. Vista Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  3. People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Miklosy v. Regents of the University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008
  5. People v. RiggsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2008

123 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