People v. Profit

22 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Yandell

    2:19-cr-00107-KJM (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2024)

    But the act need not “constitute the crime” that is the object of the conspiracy, nor an attempt to commit that crime. Id. at 244 (quoting People v. Profit, 183 Cal.App.3d 849, 882 (1986)). Nor must the overt act itself be a crime, nor unlawful; it can be an act that in isolation would appear to be completely innocent. See Fenenbock, 46 Cal.App.4th at 1708.

  2. People v. Finley

    B276787 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2017)

    " [Citation.]' (Italics added.)" (People v. Profit (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 849, 863 (Profit), quoting from Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 789 (Wilson).) The Fourth Amendment provides "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.)

  3. People v. Daugherty

    50 Cal.App.4th 275 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 46 times
    Carrying no identification while making long trip a fact considered in reasonable suspicion determination

    Gillespie identified himself and advised Daugherty she was not under arrest, she was free to go at any time, and she did not have to talk with him. As the court in People v. Profit (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 849, 877 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 148] noted, ". . . the delivery of warnings weighs heavily in favor of finding voluntariness and consent." Daugherty argues, however, the language used by Gillespie at the end of the warning converted the consensual encounter into a detention because a reasonable person would believe she had no choice but to remain and answer Gillespie's questions. From the record, it appears Gillespie ended his warning with "but, in fact," he had some questions for her if she didn't mind.

  4. Martinez v. County of Los Angeles

    47 Cal.App.4th 334 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 81 times
    Holding there was a threat where the suspect had stated he intended to kill the police officer, was indisputably armed with a knife, and continually advanced to within ten feet despite warnings

    The potency of PCP and its dangerous effects on those who take it have been recognized by ample case authority. (See People v. Profit (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 849, 871-872 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 148], and cases cited therein ["`. . . PCP anesthetizes the body to a point where the user feels "absolutely zero pain." A person who uses PCP may thus appear to have "superhuman strength" because his or her body is immune to pain which would otherwise inhibit activities.

  5. People v. Von Villas

    11 Cal.App.4th 175 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 127 times
    Holding that to make a marital communication in confidence, " one must intend nondisclosure and have a reasonable expectation of privacy"

    Nor is it required that such a step or act, in and of itself, be a criminal or unlawful act." ( People v. Profit (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 849, 882 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 148]; accord, People v. McKinney (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 174, 177 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 175] [an overt act need not amount to an attempt to commit the offense or to aiding and abetting].) "The requirement of an overt act before the conspirators can be prosecuted and punished exists . . ., to provide a locus p[ o] enitentiae — an opportunity for the conspirators to reconsider, terminate the agreement, and thereby avoid punishment for the conspiracy."

  6. People v. Sanchez

    195 Cal.App.3d 42 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 7 times

    [Citation.] If there is no detention — no seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment — then no constitutional rights have been infringed." ( Wilson v. Superior Court, supra, 34 Cal.3d at p. 789; People v. Washington (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1120, 1124 [ 236 Cal.Rptr. 840] ; People v. Profit (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 849, 876-877 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 148]; People v. Gonzales (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 1194 1196-1197 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 74].) In other words, the essence of a consensual encounter is its voluntary nature where a citizen, under no compulsion to respond or remain, permits official intrusion upon basic interests protected by the Constitution.

  7. People v. Franklin

    192 Cal.App.3d 935 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 118 times
    Finding no detention, in part because the officer directed no verbal requests or commands

    The citizen participant in a consensual encounter may leave, refuse to answer questions or decline to act in the manner requested by the authorities. Where a consensual encounter has been found, police may inquire into the contents of pockets ( People v. Epperson (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 115, 118-120 [ 232 Cal.Rptr. 16]); ask for identification ( People v. Gonzales (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 1194, 1196-1197 [ 211 Cal.Rptr. 74]); or request the citizen to submit to a search ( People v. Profit (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 849, 857, 879-880 [ 229 Cal.Rptr. 148]). It is not the nature of the question or request made by the authorities, but rather the manner or mode in which it is put to the citizen that guides us in deciding whether compliance was voluntary or not.

  8. Johnson v. Sullivan

    ED CV 21-00647-SPG (PLA) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2023)

    Here, there is no evidence of subterfuge as California law clearly provides that an overt act does not need to “constitute the crime or even an attempt to commit the crime which is the conspiracy's ultimate object” or “be a criminal or an unlawful act.” People v. Profit, 183 Cal.App.3d 849, 882, 229 Cal.Rptr. 148 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1986).

  9. State v. Winters

    2015 Vt. 116 (Vt. 2015)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[b]ecause defendant was illegally seized, his subsequent ‘consents’ to the search of his person and car, which occurred very shortly thereafter, were tainted and ineffective"

    ¶ 59. In a later case, People v. Profit, 229 Cal. Rptr. 148 (Ct. App. 1986), the California Court of Appeal did not find a seizure under similar facts but where the nature of the questioning was different from that in Wilson. Id. at 155-56, 166-67.

  10. People v. Guyton

    B267187 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 10, 2017)   Cited 1 times

    He claims the meeting at McDonald's could not have been an overt act since the jury was instructed with CALCRIM No. 415 that "[t]he overt act must be more than the act of agreeing or planning to commit the crime . . . ." (See People v. Profit (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 849, 882 ["An 'overt act' means any step taken or act committed by one or more of the conspirators which goes beyond mere planning or agreement to accomplish the conspiracy's object"], italics omitted.) Appellant is mistaken.