Patrick Garrido

BUSL-18

Brief 1
People v. Simpson, (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 854 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 851]

Facts: The defendant, Richard Andrew Simpson, was suspected of possessing and

distributing large quantities of cocaine and marijuana, as well as several firearms. After

confirming this suspicion, which was further reinforced by a previous conviction of

Simpson for possession of marijuana and an illegal firearm, officers from Culver City

requested warrants to search several houses, included Simpson’s residence. The officers

detained Simpson’s wife, who was returning home from dropping off her child, and

called Mr. Simpson to inform him that his wife had been the victim of a traffic accident.

As Simpson drove to the alleged scene, he was detained, and the warrant was served.

While officers did not find the large amounts of drugs, they did find a firearm and about

68 grams of marijuana.

Procedural History: After his arrest, Simpson was charged with illegal possession of a

firearm, and possession of 68 grams of marijuana. Before the trial began, a hearing was

held to determine whether or not Simpson’s weapon was admissible, as the prosecution

noted he had not been read his Miranda rights. However, the court determined that,

despite this, there was sufficient evidence that the firearm presented enough of a danger

that it could waive the reading of the Miranda rights, per the Quarles exception. Though

the prosecution attempted to rely on U.S. vs Mobley to refute this interpretation of the

Quarles exception, the court upheld the verdict.

Issue:
1. According to Simpson, because the officers who detained him did not read him his

rights, the evidence found should not be admissible, thus causing issue with the

prosecution's case. Was Simpson's denial of his Miranda rights grounds to dismiss the

evidence officers found at his residence?

2. Simpson brings up U.S. v. Mobley, arguing that the public safety exception to the

Miranda rights brought up in New York v. Quarles ought not to apply, as Simpson, having

been detained, offered no danger to the officers who detained him. Did the court find that

U.S. v. Mobley applied in Simpson's case?

Result/Holding:

1. In invoking Miranda, the court did not agree with Simpson. The justice notes that

notable exceptions, particularly the New York v, Quarles exception, permits arrests

without having been read said rights when there is a reasonable possibility of public

endangerment. Thus, while Simpson was not read his rights, precedent existed to justify

this under the Quarles exception.

2. Ultimately, the court did not agree with the appellant's reference to U.S. v Mobley as a

counterpoint to Quarles, suggesting that the situation protrayed in Mobley was dissimilar

to the appellant's. Where in Mobley, the person of interested had been detained while

naked, the court found that Simpson's particular situation was dissimilar to that of

Mobley.

Reasoning:

1. In New York v Quarles, Quarles was detained and found to have a holster, but no
firearm. Before reading Quarles his rights, the officers inquired as to the location of

Quarles' firearm, to which Quarles responded by revealing its location, having been

hidden by Quarles in the store. In this instance, the court ruled that the concern for public

safety was of more import than the reading of Quarles' Miranda rights. The court

additionally concluded that officers of the law could "distinguish almost instinctively

between questions necesesary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public and

questions designed solely to elicit testimonial evidence from a suspect.". In this regard,

the court found that, though Simpson himself did not pose a threat, officers determined

that the potential danger that the public and officers faced when executing the warrant on

Simpson's residence was serious enough to warrant the waiving of Simpson's Miranda

rights.

2. In U.S. v. Mobley, the immediate danger presented to officers had already been found

neutralized, as officers had already performed a sweep through Mobley's apartment, and

Mobley himself was pinned to his door, his lack of clothing assuring the officers that

Mobley was not hiding a weapon which could endanger an officer's life. To this end, the

court found that Mobley did not apply in Simpson's case. Wheras Mobley's house had

already been searched, Simpson's house presented a very real danger to officers. Despite

Simpson's own apparent lack of danger, officers were not entirely sure what they might

encounter upon executing the warrant and entering Simpson's property. To this end,

Mobley does not apply here, as there was a very real danger for officers, unlike Mobley.

Procedural Consequences: Ultimately, the judgment issued by the court was affirmed.