People v. Callen

5 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. State

    908 So. 2d 273 (Ala. Crim. App. 2001)   Cited 52 times

    However, as the Court of Appeals of Nebraska stated in State v. Brown, 5 Neb.App. 889, 567 N.W.2d 307 (1997): " People v. Callen, 194 Cal.App.3d 558, 239 Cal.Rptr. 584 (1987), involved a `Crimestoppers' program in which an anonymous caller provided the license plate number of a vehicle involved in a robbery. In Callen, the police did not know the person's identity, and the defendant's motion to compel disclosure was denied.

  2. State v. Brown

    567 N.W.2d 307 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 5 times
    In State v. Brown, 5 Neb.App. 889, 567 N.W.2d 307 (1997), the court held that dismissal of drug possession charges was not required as a matter of law, even though the informant could not be produced.

    Whether they are distinguishable from this case cannot be determined because the relevant facts of this case have not yet been developed. Nevertheless, these cases offer some guidance. People v. Callen, 194 Cal.App.3d 558, 239 Cal.Rptr. 584 (1987), involved a "Crimestoppers" program in which an anonymous caller provided the license plate number of a vehicle involved in a robbery. In Callen, the police did not know the person's identity, and the defendant's motion to compel disclosure was denied.

  3. People v. Jones

    B227030 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2012)

    California cases have uniformly rejected due process claims based upon a failure to collect evidence. (Frye, at p. 943 [no duty to collect additional bloodstains and other items at crime scene]; People v. Daniels (1991) 52 Cal.3d 815, 855 [no duty to perform gunshot residue test on witness]; People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, 911 [no duty to take "more and better photographs" of footprints]; People v. Hogan (1982) 31 Cal.3d 815, 851 [no duty to collect scrapings from victim's fingernails], disapproved on another ground in People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 836; People v. Velasco (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1263 (Velasco) [no duty to confiscate clothing from prison inmate defendant]; People v. Callen (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 558, 561 [no duty to determine identity of anonymous caller-informant]; People v. Ventura (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 784, 794-795 (Ventura) [no duty to administer intoxication tests to suspect arrested in fatal shooting]; People v. Bradley (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 399, 405-406 [no duty to collect bloodstains].) In Velasco, the court noted the fundamental distinction between a failure to preserve evidence and a failure to collect it in the first place: "It is axiomatic that the constitutional due process guaranty is a bulwark against improper state action.

  4. People v. Jobe

    No. E049242 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2010)

    [¶] ‘“[T]he law does not impose upon law enforcement agencies the requirement that they take the initiative, or even any affirmative action, in procuring... evidence deemed necessary to the defense of an accused.” [Citation.]’ [Citations.]” (People v. Callen (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 558, 561-562.) For example, in People v. Bradley (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 399, a burglar entered a house by breaking a window; in the process, he evidently cut himself, as the police found blood on the curtains and elsewhere around the house.

  5. People v. Siegl

    914 P.2d 511 (Colo. App. 1996)   Cited 5 times

    We are satisfied the benefits of a Crimestoppers-type program — citizen involvement in reporting crime and criminals — far outweigh any speculative benefits to the defense arising from imposing a duty on law enforcement to gather and preserve evidence of the identity of informants who wish to remain anonymous. People v. Callen, 194 Cal.App.3d 558, 563, 239 Cal.Rptr. 584, 587 (1987). B.