People v. Landau
154 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Landau faced a petition to commit as an SVP under SVPA after parole for prior child-sex offenses; initial DMH evaluations in 2000 found SVP status and the People filed the petition in 2000.
- There were multiple delays and mistrials across three trials spanning years, with changes in counsel and prosecutors and discovery disputes.
- Updated SVP evaluations were sought and conducted by different doctors, including those retained by the People, leading to contested admissibility and the use of “underground regulations.”
- During trial, the box-seizure/search of 18 sealed boxes from a third party was authorized and evidence from the boxes was introduced at trial.
- Dietz’s and other experts diagnosed pedophilia and other risk factors; the defense presented evidence that Landau was aging, less sexual, and could be treated, while the People argued the risk of reoffense remained.
- Proposition 83 later changed SVPA to indeterminate confinement with annual examinations and potential termination hearings, raising equal protection questions later resolved in McKee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Underground regulations and prejudice | Landau asserts initial evaluations used unlawful underground regs. | People argues no prejudice shown. | No prejudice established; not fundamental jurisdictional defect. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to challenge underground regs earlier. | No Strickland prejudice; full trial with experts. | No ineffective assistance. |
| Fourth Amendment exclusion in SVPA | Evidence from sealed boxes obtained via search violated Fourth Amendment. | SVPA civil proceeding warrants no exclusionary rule; deterrence adequate. | Exclusionary rule does not apply in SVPA proceedings. |
| Timeliness and due process | Landau denied timely trial; prolonged pretrial confinement. | Delays largely at Landau's request or due to court congestion; no due process violation. | No due process violation; delays did not deny a meaningful right. |
| Equal protection under Proposition 83 changes | Indeterminate SVP commitment burden-shifts and is harsher than MDO/NGI. | Statutory scheme justified by public safety and treatment needs; McKee I guidance supports disparity. | Equal protection challenge rejected; McKee rationale followed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Medina, 171 Cal.App.4th 805 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th 2009) (underground protocol not prejudicial when trial complete)
- In re Ronje, 179 Cal.App.4th 509 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th 2009) (remand for new evaluations where underground regs used)
- Orozco v. Superior Court, 117 Cal.App.4th 170 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th 2004) (no loss of jurisdiction from delay; due process concerns analyzed)
- Litmon v. Superior Court (Litmon I), 123 Cal.App.4th 1156 (Cal. App. 4th 2004) (due process in SVP delay; need timely trial; deference to delay factors)
- Litmon v. Superior Court (Litmon II), 162 Cal.App.4th 383 (Cal. App. 4th 2008) (due process analysis for SVP delays; Barker/Mathews tests applied)
- McKee v. Superior Court I, 47 Cal.4th 1172 (Cal. 2010) (SVPs similarly situated to MDOs; equal protection remand guidance)
- McKee v. Superior Court II, 207 Cal.App.4th 1325 (Cal. App. 2012) (remand on disparate treatment; substantial evidence standard)
- Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (Supreme Court 1997) (civil vs criminal classification; basis for equal protection analysis)
- Susan T., 8 Cal.4th 1005 (Cal. 1994) (exclusionary rule in civil commitments; cost-benefit analysis)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (Supreme Court 1972) (speedy trial balance factors and delay prejudice)