Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Dep't of Transp. v. State Pers. Bd., No. B210334

By FindLaw Staff on October 21, 2009 12:03 PM

In plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus seeking to apply the exclusionary rule in a civil disciplinary proceeding to bar introduction of a firearm and ammunition seized from his car and his pockets by the California Highway Patrol resulting in termination of his employment with Caltrans, judgment of the trial court is affirmed as, although an illegal search took place, the exclusionary rule does not apply because the search occurred during a criminal investigation, and was not conducted by the agency that employs the worker being disciplined. Thus, excluding evidence in an administrative disciplinary proceeding would have no deterrent effect on a state law enforcement officer investigating reports of a crime occurring at another state agency. 

Read Dep't of Transp. v. State Pers. Bd., No. B210334 [HTML]

Read Dep't of Transp. v. State Pers. Bd., No. B210334 [PDF]

Filed October 20, 2009


Opinion by Judge Boren


For Appellant: Gerald A. James 

For Appellee:  Ronald W. Beals, Chief Counsel, Linda Cohen Harrel, Deputy Chief Counsel, Robert W. Vidor, Alexander D. DeVorkin, Carol Quan, William H. Rittenburg, Jerald M. Montoya  

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard