People v. Krivda
| Decision Date | 04 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 15295 |
| Citation | 8 Cal.3d 623,105 Cal.Rptr. 521 |
| Court | California Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 504 P.2d 457 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Judith KRIVDA et al., Defendants and Respondents. In Bank |
The Supreme Court of the United States on October 24, 1972, issued its judgment and mandate that 'the judgment of the Supreme Court of California in this cause be vacated, and that this cause be remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of California for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court.'
The opinion of the United States Supreme Court, reported at 409 U.S. 33, 93 S.Ct. 32, 34 L.Ed.2d 45, in part stated that
Pursuant to the mandate hereinabove quoted we have reexamined our opinion in the subject case (reported at 5 Cal.3d 357, 96 Cal.Rptr. 62, 486 P.2d 1262) and certify that we relied upon both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 19, of the California Constitution, and that accordingly the latter provision furnished an independent ground to support the result we reached in that opinion. Inasmuch as we deem it unnecessary to alter or amend our prior decision, we reiterate that decision in its entirety.
Let the remittitur issue forthwith.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Chapman
...62, 486 P.2d 1262, judgment vacated and cause remanded (1972) 409 U.S. 33, 93 S.Ct. 32, 34 L.Ed.2d 45, reiterated (1973) 8 Cal.3d 623, 105 Cal.Rptr. 521, 504 P.2d 457; see Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576.) This court has held that "in determining whet......
-
De Lancie v. Superior Court of State of Cal., San Mateo County
...885, 564 P.2d 1203; People v. Longwill (1975) 14 Cal.3d 943, 951, fn. 4, 123 Cal.Rptr. 297, 538 P.2d 753; People v. Krivda (1973) 8 Cal.3d 623, 624, 105 Cal.Rptr. 521, 504 P.2d 457; Curry v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 707, 716, 87 Cal.Rptr. 361, 470 P.2d 345; cf. Cardenas v. Superior Co......
-
Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Bd. of Education
...that comparable federal and state constitutional provisions are not necessarily co-extensive (see, e.g., People v. Krivda, 8 Cal.3d 623, 624, 105 Cal.Rptr. 521, 504 P.2d 457; Rios v. Cozens, 9 Cal.3d 454, 455, 107 Cal.Rptr. 784, 509 P.2d 696), we need not explore potential variations in app......
-
Lorenzana v. Superior Court
...of privacy, and if so, whether that expectation has been violated by unreasonable governmental intrusion.' (People v. Krivda, 8 Cal.3d 623, 105 Cal.Rptr. 521, 504 P.2d 457; People v. Sirhan, supra, 7 Cal.3d 710, 741--743, 102 Cal.Rptr. 385, 497 P.2d 1121; People v. Bradley, supra, 1 Cal.3d ......