Preliminary Hearings in Felony Cases

A lot of our blog posts touch upon the subject of criminal procedure. The reason: defendants should be aware of what is going on in their case. Too often, defendants are ignorant of what they must accomplish to be cleared of the charges against them.  Knowing the different burdens of proof, obstacles, and objectives will only assist the attorney in his or her representation.

With that preface, let us discuss preliminary hearings, commonly referred to as "prelims." A felony case begins with a complaint being filed. A complaint lists out allegations, or criminal charges, against the defendant. Once the defendant is arraigned, where the court explains the charges against the defendant and asks the defendant to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, a preliminary hearing is set within ten days, unless time is waived (a time waiver allows hearings to be scheduled further out).

A prelim is a probable cause hearing. A judge, or magistrate, hears evidence and then determines whether there is sufficient probable cause to find that the defendant  must "be held to answer." Held to answer is a legal term, which means that there is enough evidence for the defendant to stand trial for the charges itemized in the complaint.

The court may dismiss some charges (even all, at times), however, if he or she believes that there is insufficient probable cause. Probable cause is a lower burden to meet than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Probable cause is met when there are facts that would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and hold a strong suspicion that the defendant is guilty of a crime.

It is not enough if the prosecutor can only prove some of the "elements" of the crime. All elements of the charged crime must meet the threshold of probable cause, or the charges must be dismissed.

At the defendant's preliminary hearing, an attorney may be present. Most constitutional rights that would apply at trial are also applicable at preliminary hearing. A defendant may cross examine prosecution witnesses. Evidence may also be presented by the defendant to negate an element of the charged crime. There is also a right to discovery, where the prosecution must disclose all exculpatory (helpful) evidence.

Strategically, an attorney may feel that a preliminary hearing is futile, but insist that one take place anyway. Why? He or she will get an opportunity to hear a preview of the prosecution's case against the defendant. It helps prepare the defense attorney for trial. Another reason: an attorney may want to impeach a witness at trial, when there is a likelihood that the witness will testify differently at preliminary hearing. Other times, an attorney may advise that the defendant waive his right to a preliminary hearing --like when there is plenty of evidence to find probable cause.

Defendants should always consult with a criminal defense attorney prior to the preliminary hearing. As stated above, there is a possibility that the case will be dismissed at preliminary hearing. But, more likely than not, if a defendant is not prepared or ready, he or she will "lose" at the preliminary hearing. Thus, a diligent defendant will seek out representation before he or she goes forward to prelim.

DUI Checkpoints Are Legal

The other day an individual challenged his DUI in court without the representation of an attorney. In open court, in front of the other defendants and attorneys, he started to yell at the presiding judge. "They violated my constitutional rights!" The judge was annoyed but let the man finish. "A DUI checkpoint is unconstitutional! There was no probable cause to stop me!" After he was done, the judge responded: "This is an arraignment. All you need to do is enter a plea of guilty, no contest, or not guilty."

Besides the procedural mistake (one does not argue the merits of a case at an arraignment), the pro per defendant was wrong on the law. DUI checkpoints are not unconstitutional. To the contrary, both the United States and California Constitutions' allow DUI checkpoints.

The rationale behind "mobile" or "roadblock" DUI checkpoints lies in public safety. Due to the state's strong interest in preventing injury from DUI accidents, minor inconveniences are allowed. This does not mean that law enforcement can use checkpoints as an excuse to perform general or broad investigations. Police officers must follow strict guidelines when conducting a DUI checkpoint.

California has enacted legislation with respect to checkpoints. California Vehicle Code section 2814.2, subsection (a) states: "[a] driver of a motor vehicle shall stop and submit to a sobriety checkpoint inspection conducted by a law enforcement agency when signs and displays are posted requiring that stop."

Nevertheless, a California Supreme Court case in 1987 (Ingersoll v. Palmer), enumerated the guidelines that must be followed by officers executing a DUI checkpoint. They are as follows:

     a) Supervising officers must make all operational decisions;
     b) Criteria for stops must be neutral;
     c) Checkpoint must be reasonably located;
     d) Adequate safety measures must be taken;
     e) Good judgment must be used when determining the checkpoint's time and duration;
     f) There must be sufficient notice to drivers that the checkpoint is for official purposes;
     g) Drivers must only be stopped for a minimal amount of time; and
     h) Checkpoints should be publicly advertised in advance of execution.

If these guidelines are not followed, it is possible that a DUI charge, arising from a checkpoint, could be challenged. There are never guarantees, however.

A checkpoint also does not mean officers' can perform an extensive investigation without probable cause. A brief stop can lead to an investigation when there is evidence, sufficient probable cause, of intoxication --for example, when a person has alcohol on his breath, blurred eyes, or slurred speech.

In summary, on holiday weekends, like Labor Day Weekend, make sure that you avoid situations where you will have to drink and drive. Use a designated driver or taxi service if you drink. It is not only against the law, it is extremely dangerous. With that, have a good weekend!

Medical Marijuana and Probable Cause Vehicle Searches

It’s well known that law enforcement officers generally need a warrant before they can search a suspect’s person or possessions and, subsequently, use whatever they find at a later trial. However, there are a number of exceptions to this general rule, so many in fact that some commentators have argued that there are more holes than coverage in the warrant requirement. One well known exception is the rule that allows officers to search a suspect’s vehicle with probable cause; this is known as the vehicle exception. This article isn’t long enough to discuss all the important details of the automobile exception, there’s a lot of nuance to the rule, but one aspect that has become increasingly important of late is the question of exactly what kinds of facts lead to probable cause for a search in the context of the legal possession of medical marijuana. As ever more states legalize some form of marijuana possession or use, figuring out just when the possession of marijuana triggers probable cause for a search is becoming increasingly difficult.

Understanding Probable Cause Searches (in brief)

Sticking with generalities, an officer has probable cause for a search where the facts and circumstances would lead a reasonable person to believe that there was a likelihood that the object to be searched contained contraband or evidence of a crime. In other words, there is probable cause for a search when officers can reasonably expect to find something illegal. So, in the case of a prospective automobile search, officers won’t need a warrant if, in the specific situation in question, there exists good reason to believe something illegal is in the car. Before marijuana was selectively legal in some states, it was an easy trigger for a probable cause search. Possession of marijuana or its implements was illegal and if an officer saw, or smelled, evidence of marijuana use or possession, a search was likely reasonable. The introduction of legal medical marijuana has muddied these waters.

Legal Possession?

Under most medical marijuana statutes, only a small quantity of the substance is actually legal; carry too much, and your medical card won’t prevent prosecution. Under these circumstances, if an officer detects evidence of the use or possession of marijuana, does this still trigger probable cause for a search? Like any good legal question, the answer is; it depends. One court recently thought it did, but let’s take a close look at the facts to see if we can understand why. In People v. Waxler, a California court of appeals ruled that presentation to an officer of a valid medical marijuana card did not destroy probable cause for an in-progress search of a suspect’s vehicle. In Waxler, the suspect was sitting in his vehicle in a parking lot when he was approached by officer Griffin. Officer Griffin smelled burnt marijuana and saw a used marijuana pipe on the seat next to the suspect. On this, the officer conducted a search of the vehicle and discovered stronger illegal drugs. At some point during the encounter, but apparently after the search had begun, Waxler presented officer Griffin with a valid medical marijuana card. The officer acknowledged the card but proceeded with the investigation and arrest. At trial, Waxler challenged the search, which is what turned up the other illegal drugs, by claiming that because he had a valid medical marijuana card the officer had no grounds for the vehicle search in the first place.

Verifying Legal Possession

Unfortunately for Waxler, the Court of Appeals disagreed; reasoning that even though Waxler’s medical marijuana card entitled him to possession of some marijuana, the officer still had grounds to conduct a search in order to determine if Waxler was in possession of more marijuana than his card allowed. The court based part of its decision on the fact that under the applicable law, possession of a valid medical marijuana card was not a bar to search or arrest, but merely a valid defense at trial. In other words, apparently the court felt that officer Griffin was well within his authority to arrest Waxler despite the medical marijuana card and that Waxler could have used the card as a defense at trial but not as a bar against search or arrest.

Distinguishing Waxler

Two things stick out about this case. The first is that Waxler apparently first presented the card to officer Griffin after the search had already begun. In other words, officer Griffin probably had clear probable cause to start the search because possession of marijuana is generally illegal in California; absent a medical marijuana card. It’s unclear if the court would have ruled the same way if Waxler had been thoughtful enough to present his card to officer Griffin right at the beginning of the encounter rather than halfway through the search. The second point of interest in this case is the fact that only validly prescribed marijuana, in limited quantities, is currently legal in California. Were marijuana legal for recreational use by the general public, it’s uncertain whether officer Griffin would still have had probable cause to search for the meth that he ultimately turned up. Prosecutors might still argue that use of marijuana suggests the possibility of other drug use or possession, and they might be right, but at some point this line of reasoning must break down. For example, does use or possession of vodka suggest use or possession of other, less legal, drugs? Who knows? Ultimately, under the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement, the totality of the facts must be considered.

As ever more states move to legalize some form of marijuana use or possession, it seems likely that the use or possession of, at least small amounts, of marijuana will become increasingly commonplace. At least to the point where such use or possession will no longer provide officers with probable cause to conduct a larger search absent some other factors.