In re I.F.
| Docket Number | C080658 |
| Decision Date | 22 February 2018 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
25 cases
-
People v. Douglas
...denying certiorari which has no precedential significance at all. ( Id. at pp. 944-945, 99 S.Ct. 335 ; see also In re I.F. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 735, 764, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 462.) Justice Stevens further noted that such opinions are also "potentially misleading." ( Singleton, at p. 945, 99 S.C......
-
People v. Orozco
...he knowingly interacts with the police or their agents. ( Id. at p. 295, 100 S.Ct. 1682 [speaking with police]; In re I.F. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 735, 773, 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 462 [same]; In Interest of D.W. (1982) 108 Ill. App. 3d 1109, 1110-1111, 64 Ill.Dec. 588, 440 N.E.2d 140 [same]; People ......
-
Delgado v. McDowell
... ... witnesses about the perceived ethnicity and clothing of ... people they saw leaving after the shootings. A review of ... defendant's telephone revealed searches ... the Federal Circuits that it would, if presented to th[e] ... [Supreme] Court, be accepted as correct.” Id ... at 64 ... ...
-
People v. Boji
...(1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1162.) "Police officers are not required to give Miranda warnings to everyone they question." (In re I.F. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 735, 759, citing Oregon v. Mathiason, supra, 429 U.S. at p. 495.) "A custodial interrogation does not occur where an officer detains a ......
Get Started for Free
5 books & journal articles
-
Suppressing involuntary confessions
...conlicted and not deemed helpful. Richardson v. Thompson , 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131748 para 72 (N.D. Il.2019). See also In re I.F. , 20 Cal. App. 5th 735 (Cal.Ct. App. 2018). 2. Adult Court Penalties §11:72 General Rule: Police Not Required to Inform Juvenile of Possible Adult Penalties Wh......
-
Suppressing involuntary confessions
...conflicted and not deemed helpful. Richardson v. Thompson , 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131748 ¶ 72 (N.D. Il. 2019). See also In re I.F. , 20 Cal. App. 5th 735 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). 2. Adult Court Penalties §11:72 General Rule: Police Not Required to Inform Juvenile of Possible Adult Penalties Wh......
-
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
...at 477; People v. Caro (2019) 7 Cal.5th 463, 491; People v. Potter (3d Dist.2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 528, 539; In re I.F. (3d Dist.2018) 20 Cal. App.5th 735, 759. This deprivation of freedom is commonly referred to as the functional equivalent of formal arrest. See People v. Young (2019) 7 Cal.......
-
Table of Cases null
...5-B, §2.2.2(3)(b)[2] I.C., In re, 4 Cal. 5th 869, 231 Cal. Rptr. 3d 712, 415 P.3d 773 (Cal. 2018)—Ch. 5-E, §3.2.1(3)(f) I.F., In re, 20 Cal. App. 5th 735, 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 462 (3d Dist. 2018)—Ch. 5-C, §2.1.1; §5.2.1(1) Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405, 125 S. Ct. 834, 160 L. Ed. 2d 842 (......
Get Started for Free
