CA Pub. Decisions
California Published Decisions
Court granted review in this case to decide whether the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits law enforcement officers, approximately 90 minutes after lawfully arresting a suspect and transporting him to a detention facility, to conduct a warrantless search of the text message folder of a cell phone they take from his person after the arrest. court hold that, under the United States Supreme Court's binding precedent, such a search is valid as being incident to a lawful custodial arrest. Court affirm the Court of Appeal's judgment.
|
Court granted review in this case to decide whether the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits law enforcement officers, approximately 90 minutes after lawfully arresting a suspect and transporting him to a detention facility, to conduct a warrantless search of the text message folder of a cell phone they take from his person after the arrest. court hold that, under the United States Supreme Court's binding precedent, such a search is valid as being incident to a lawful custodial arrest. We affirm the Court of Appeal's judgment.
|
The California Constitution provides that any act to increase taxes must be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.[1] On the other hand, statutes that create or raise regulatory fees need only the assent of a simple majority.[2] In 2003, the Legislature passed amendments to the Water Code[3] by a 53 percent majority. Current section 1525 was enacted as part of these amendments. The threshold issue here is whether section 1525, subdivision (a) imposes a tax or a fee. We hold that the amendments and section 1525 do not explicitly impose a tax and, therefore, are not facially unconstitutional. However, because the record is unclear as to whether the fees were reasonably apportioned in terms of the regulatory activity's costs and the fees assessed, we direct the Court of Appeal to remand the matter to the trial court to make these findings.
|
The California Constitution provides that any act to increase taxes must be passed by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.[1] On the other hand, statutes that create or raise regulatory fees need only the assent of a simple majority.[2] In 2003, the Legislature passed amendments to the Water Code[3] by a 53 percent majority. Current section 1525 was enacted as part of these amendments. The threshold issue here is whether section 1525, subdivision (a) imposes a tax or a fee. We hold that the amendments and section 1525 do not explicitly impose a tax and, therefore, are not facially unconstitutional. However, because the record is unclear as to whether the fees were reasonably apportioned in terms of the regulatory activity's costs and the fees assessed, we direct the Court of Appeal to remand the matter to the trial court to make these findings.
|
A jury convicted defendant Bernard Albert Nelson of the first degree murder, robbery, and attempted carjacking of Richard Dunbar. It concluded, as a special circumstance, that the murder was committed in the course of the other two felonies. It also convicted him of robbing, inflicting great bodily injury upon, and attempting to murder Miguel Cortez. In addition, it found defendant guilty of attempting to murder Giovanni Boccanfuso, Charles Coleman, and â€
|
A jury convicted defendant Bernard Albert Nelson of the first degree murder, robbery, and attempted carjacking of Richard Dunbar. It concluded, as a special circumstance, that the murder was committed in the course of the other two felonies. It also convicted him of robbing, inflicting great bodily injury upon, and attempting to murder Miguel Cortez. In addition, it found defendant guilty of attempting to murder Giovanni Boccanfuso, Charles Coleman, and â€
|
Actions
Category Stats
Listings: 2656
Regular: 2665
Last listing added: 10:05:2022
Regular: 2665
Last listing added: 10:05:2022