People v. Maikhio

Citation51 Cal.4th 1074,126 Cal.Rptr.3d 74,253 P.3d 247
Decision Date20 June 2011
Docket NumberNo. S180289.,S180289.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant,v.Bouhn MAIKHIO, Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Jan I. Goldsmith, City Attorney, David P. Greenberg and Andrew Jones, Assistant City Attorneys, Monica A. Tiana and Jonathan I. Lapin, Deputy City Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant.Edmund G. Brown, Jr., and Kamala D. Harris, Attorneys General, Matthew Rodriquez, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary E. Hackenbracht, Assistant Attorney General, Carol A. Squire, Deborah Fletcher and Nicholas Stern, Deputy Attorneys General, for California Department of Fish and Game as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.Steven J. Carroll, Public Defender, Randy Mize, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Gary R. Nichols, Matthew Braner and Jessica Marshall, Deputy Public Defenders, for Defendant and Respondent.CANTIL–SAKAUYE, C.J.

[253 P.3d 249 , 51 Cal.4th 1078]

To protect and preserve the wildlife of the state for current and future generations, California—like other states—has adopted numerous statutes and regulations governing the conduct of persons who fish or hunt in this state, prescribing, for example, the places where fishing or hunting may occur, the seasons in which particular species may be taken, the number and size of different types of fish or animals that may be caught or shot, the means by which particular types of wildlife may be taken, and the licenses, permits, and records required for different fishing and hunting activities. To make possible the effective enforcement of these regulations, California law has long required anyone who chooses to fish or hunt in this state to exhibit or display, upon demand of any official authorized by California law to enforce the fish and game statutes and regulations (1) any required fishing or hunting license, (2) all fish or game the angler or hunter has caught or taken, and (3) any equipment capable of being used to take such fish or game.

In the present case, a fish and game warden (hereafter game warden), surveilling a public fishing pier from a distance with a spotting telescope, observed defendant Bouhn Maikhio fishing with a handline from the pier and catching either a lobster or fish that defendant placed in a small black bag by his side. Although from his position the game warden could not identify the item defendant had caught and placed in the bag, the warden was aware that, although it was unlawful to do so, such handlines were often utilized in that location to catch spiny lobsters, which were out of season at that time. After the game warden saw defendant leave the pier with the black bag, enter a car in the pier parking lot, and drive away, the warden stopped defendant's car a few blocks from the pier, introduced himself as a game warden, and asked defendant if he had any fish or lobsters in his car. When defendant denied having any, the game warden looked in the car, saw the black bag on the floor of the rear passenger area, opened the bag and discovered a spiny lobster. Upon questioning, defendant admitted taking the lobster and said he had been “stupid” to do so. The game warden issued a citation to defendant and thereafter returned the lobster to the ocean.

When misdemeanor charges were subsequently brought against defendant based upon this incident, defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the game warden on the ground that the warden had engaged in an unconstitutional search and seizure in stopping defendant's car under the circumstances described above. The trial court agreed with defendant's contention, suppressed the evidence, and dismissed the charges. The appellate division of the superior court reversed the trial court's ruling, but the Court of Appeal, after accepting transfer of the appeal, affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the charges in a divided decision. The majority opinion in the Court of Appeal concluded (1) that the game warden was permitted to stop defendant's car only if the warden was aware of facts that provided reasonable suspicion that defendant had violated an applicable statute or regulation, and (2) that the facts in this case did not provide such reasonable suspicion because the game warden was not able to see what item defendant had caught with the handline and defendant could lawfully have used a handline to catch some species of fish other than spiny lobster. The dissenting Court of Appeal justice concluded that the game warden's stop of defendant's vehicle was lawful and was fully supported by California precedent.

On the People's petition, we granted review to determine whether a game warden who reasonably believes that a person has recently been fishing or hunting, but lacks reasonable suspicion that the person has violated an applicable fish or game statute or regulation, may stop a vehicle in which the person is riding to demand the person display all fish or game the person has caught or taken.

For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Court of Appeal erred in determining that, under the applicable California statutes and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a game warden may make such a vehicle stop only if the warden is aware of facts that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the angler or hunter has violated a fish and game statute or regulation. As we shall explain, California authority has interpreted the relevant statute as authorizing a stop of a vehicle occupied by an angler or hunter for such purposes, and the United States Supreme Court has held in a number of decisions that an administrative search or seizure may be conducted, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of reasonable suspicion that a violation of a statute or administrative regulation has occurred. Such administrative searches and seizures are permissible when (1) the governmental action serves a special and important state need and interest distinct from the state's ordinary interest in enforcing the criminal law, (2) the administrative rules or regulations that are required to achieve the state's interest are of such a nature that limiting inspection only to those persons reasonably suspected of committing a violation would seriously undermine the state's ability to meet its special need, and (3) the impingement upon the reasonable expectation of privacy of those subjected to the procedure is sufficiently limited such that the state's need to utilize the procedure outweighs the invasion which the search entails, thus rendering the procedure reasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

Applying these principles in the present context, we conclude that (1) the state's interest in protecting and preserving the wildlife of this state for the benefit of current and future generations of California residents and visitors constitutes a special and important state interest and need that is distinct from the state's ordinary interest in crime control, (2) the administrative regulations that are required to serve this interest—involving, for example, limits on the number, size, and species of fish or game that may be taken at different times and in different locations—are of such a nature that they would be impossible to adequately enforce if a game warden could stop, and could demand to be shown all fish or game that have been caught by, only those anglers and hunters who the warden reasonably suspected had violated the fish and game laws, and (3) the impingement upon privacy engendered by such a stop and demand procedure is minimal because (i) the stops are limited to those persons who have voluntarily chosen to engage in the heavily regulated activity of fishing or hunting and as a consequence have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to items directly related to such activity, and (ii) the required demands are limited to items directly related to fishing and hunting and do not require disclosure of intimate or confidential matters as to which such persons retain a substantial privacy interest.

Even if we assume that a game warden's stop of a car in which an angler or hunter is riding entails a greater intrusion on privacy than a stop of an angler or hunter who is on foot, we conclude that when, as in this case, the vehicle stop is made reasonably close in time and location to the fishing or hunting activity, the encroachment upon an angler's or hunter's reasonable expectation of privacy resulting from a brief vehicle stop and demand is nonetheless rather modest, and no more intrusive than other actions by game wardens that have been upheld in past California cases.

Weighing (1) the special need of the state to stop persons who choose to fish or hunt in this state and to demand such persons display all fish or game that have been taken against (2) the intrusion upon such persons' reasonable expectation of privacy entailed by such a stop and demand, we conclude that the vehicle stop and demand at issue here constitutes a reasonable procedure under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeal judgment upholding the suppression of evidence obtained by the game warden and subsequent dismissal of the charges against defendant.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

A.

The relevant facts in this case, as disclosed by the evidence introduced at the trial court hearing on defendant's motion to suppress evidence, are undisputed.

Around 11:00 p.m. on a mid-August night in 2007, Erik Fleet, a Department of Fish and Game warden who had been employed by the department for 10 years, was on duty observing fishing activity occurring on the Ocean Beach public pier in San Diego. Warden Fleet was observing surreptitiously, using a spotting telescope mounted on the window of his truck, parked approximately 200 yards from the pier.

Fleet testified that his attention was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • People v. Harris
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 19 février 2015
    ... ... mandated by the federal exclusionary rule applicable to evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment [of the United States Constitution].’ ” ( People v. Maikhio (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1074, 1089, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 74, 253 P.3d 247, quoting In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 896, 210 Cal.Rptr. 631, 694 P.2d 744; see Cal. Const., art I, § 28, subd. (f)(2).) B. Defendant ' s Warrantless Blood Draw Did Not Violate the Fourth Amendment Because He Freely and ... ...
  • People v. Walker
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 30 janvier 2013
  • Tarabochia v. Fbi Special Agent Mickey Adkins
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 9 septembre 2014
    ... ... at 236, 129 S.Ct. 808. 1. Constitutional Violation          The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures[.]” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Given the Fourth ...          9. The district court and the WDFW officers relied on People v. Maikhio, 51 Cal.4th 1074, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 74, 253 P.3d 247 (2011), a 2011 Supreme Court of California decision, as persuasive authority in holding that the ... ...
  • People v. Buza
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 1 janvier 2014
    ... ... The unavailability of the exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of the state Constitution that are not violations of the Fourth Amendment means that state courts considering suppression of evidence must engage in a Fourth Amendment analysis. ( People v. Maikhio (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1074, 1089, 126 Cal.Rptr.3d 74, 253 P.3d 247.) But the argument respondent draws from this fact—that although the substantive scope of article I, section 13, was unaffected by Proposition 8, arrestees' rights are nevertheless “limited in a practical sense” by the absence of ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Search and seizure
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • 30 mars 2022
    ...act that dissipated the taint from the unlawful seizure.” §7:20.35 Fish and Game Administrative Violations People v. Maikhio (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1074 upheld the warrantless detention of a vehicle without reasonable suspicion based upon Fish and Game Code §2012, which requires that any person ......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • 30 mars 2022
    ...Cal.4th 986, §9:05 People v. Maikhio (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1178 (REVIEW GRANTED – Docket No. S180289), §7:59 People v. Maikhio (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1074, §7:30.31 People v. Malabag (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1419, §§10:30.2, 12:16 People v. Malik (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 170, §9:26.2 People v. Malvit......
  • CALIFORNIA'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FISH.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 51 No. 4, September 2021
    • 22 septembre 2021
    ...in fish and game resources of the state to "the strong public policy in favor of according public access to the coast." People v. Maikhio, 253 P.3d 247, 260 (Cal. 2011), Gion v. City of Santa Cruz, 465 P.2d 50, 59 (Cal. 1970); see Dietz v. King, 80 Cal. Rptr. 234, 238 (Ct. App. 1969) (citin......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT