Case Authority:

The Courts' Order of Priority

The Courts' Order of Priority: Federal and California law is cited in this outline. In reviewing the cases listed, it must be remembered that tactical decisions and actions of state and local law enforcement officers, as well as state and local prosecutors, are bound, and must be guided, in order of priority, by the decisions of:

• The United States Supreme Court
• The California Supreme Court
• The various state District Courts of Appeal (Districts 1 through 6)
• The various state Appellate Departments of the Superior Court
• Opinions of the California Attorney General
• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal
• All other Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
• The Federal District Courts

Decisions from the United States Supreme Court:

Decisions from the United States Supreme Court:  California's courts, interpreting the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, etc., must abide by decisions in prior cases when based upon similar facts as announced by the U.S. Supreme Court.  (Auto Equity Sales v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 454, 456.)

The United States Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land, and therefore takes precedence over any contrary rules from the states.  (U.S. Const. Art VI, clause 2:  "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.")

See also Cal. Const., Art. III, § 1:  "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land."

                                    "I fully recognize that under the doctrine of stare decisis, I must follow the rulings of the Supreme Court, and if that court wishes to jump off a figurative Pali, I, lemming-like, must leap right after it.  However, I reserve my First Amendment right to kick and scream on my way down to the rocks below."  (People v. Musante (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 156, 159; conc. opn. of Gardner, P.J.)

Decisions from lower Federal Courts:

Decisions from lower Federal Courts:  Decisions of the Federal District (i.e., trial) Courts, and federal Circuit Courts of Appeal (including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal), while entitled to "great weight," are considered to be "persuasive" only, and are not controlling in California state courts.  (Raven v. Deukmejian (1990) 52 Cal.3^rd 336, 352; People v. Bradley (1969) 1 Cal.3^rd 80, 86; In re Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal.4^th 68, 79; Clark v. Murphy (9^th Cir. 2003) 317 F.3^rd 1038, 1044.)

State Court Interpretation taking Precedence

State Court Interpretation taking Precedence:  For state and local law enforcement officers, a state court interpretation of the various Fourth Amendment rules will take precedence over Federal District (i.e., trial) and Circuit Court of Appeal decisions.   (See People v. Middleton (2005) 131 Cal.App.4^th 732, 738, fn. 3.)

However, federal decisions cannot be ignored.  Even purely state cases may eventually end out in a federal court, where federal rules will be applied, through a Writ of Habeas Corpus or in a civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

"A federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner if a state court's adjudication of his constitutional claim was ‘contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.'"  (Middleton v. McNeil (2004) 541 U.S. 433, 436 [158 L.Ed.2^nd 701]; citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).)

Title 42 United States Code § 1983:  Provides for federal civil liability for "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . ." subjects, or causes to be subjected any person within the United States to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution and laws.

Opinions of the California Attorney General

Opinions of the California Attorney General:  A published opinion of the California Attorney General is apparently on about equal footing with federal appellate court decisions, it having been held that these opinions are "entitled to great weight in the absence of controlling state statutes and court decisions" to the contrary.  (Phyle v. Duffy (1948) 334 U.S. 431, 441 [92 L.Ed. 1494, 1500].)

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Writ of Habeas Corpus:  When a defendant claims to be in actual or constructive custody in violation of the United States Constitution (e.g., as the result of a Fourth Amendment violation), a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in state (P.C. §§ 1473 et seq.) or federal (28 U.S.C. § 2254) court (see Wright v. West (1992) 505 U.S. 277 [120 L.Ed.2^nd 225].) is the vehicle by which he or she may test the issue. 

When a habeas corpus remedy is sought in federal court, the United States Supreme Court has noted that: "(W)here the State has provided an opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim, a state prisoner may not be granted federal habeas corpus relief on the ground that evidence obtained in an unconstitutional search or seizure was introduced at his trial."  (fns. omitted; Stone v. Powell (1976) 428 U.S. 465, 494 [49 L.Ed.2^nd 1067, 1088]; see also Allen v. McCurry (1980) 449 U.S. 90 [66 L.Ed.2^nd 308].)

Also, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a federal court "may not grant habeas relief from a state court conviction unless the state court proceedings were ‘contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States[,]' or if the state court's conclusions were ‘based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceedings.'"  (Jackson v. Giurbino (9^th Cir. 2004) 364 F.3^rd 1002, quoting Killian v. Poole (9^th Cir. 2002) 282 F.3^rd 1204, 1207.)