People v. Maikhio
126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 74
Cal.2011Background
- Warden observed defendant handlining on a public pier; the catch was placed in a black bag but not identifiable from distance.
- Defendant and companion left the pier, entered a car, and drove away; warden stopped the car a few blocks away and asked about fish or lobsters.
- Warden opened the bag, found a spiny lobster, and defendant admitted taking it; lobster was returned to the ocean.
- Defendant was charged with possessing a spiny lobster during the closed season and failing to exhibit catch on demand; motion to suppress evidence was granted by the trial court.
- Appellate divisions disagreed; the Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal, holding the stop illegal absent reasonable suspicion; People petitioned for review on whether a warden may stop a vehicle without suspicion to demand display of catch.
- This Court held that under California Fish and Game Code and the Fourth Amendment, a game warden may stop a vehicle occupied by a person who has recently been fishing or hunting to demand display of all catch, even without reasonable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory authorization to stop a vehicle without suspicion | People—Fleet had authority under 2012 to stop; 1006 not controlling | Appellate Court—no vehicle stop without suspicion | Statutory authority exists under 2012; stop permissible without suspicion |
| Constitutionality of suspicionless vehicle stop | People—administrative inspection doctrine governs; special need justifies stop | Maikhio—Fourth Amendment requires suspicion | Stop constitutional under Fourth Amendment given special need and limited intrusion |
| Should the analysis differ for vehicle stop vs. on-pier stop | People—roving stop comparable to pier stop | Maikhio—vehicle stop more intrusive | Vehicle stop legitimate when closely tied in time/location to fishing activity; intrusion deemed modest |
| Validity of subsequent search and seizure | Evidence obtained lawfully from stop | Search may be unlawful absent probable cause | Search of vehicle and bag lawful based on probable cause from observed conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Prouse v. Department of Highway Safety, 440 U.S. 648 (1979) (roving stops require suspicion for ordinary checks; relevance to vehicle stops)
- Brignoni-Ponce v. United States, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (roving stops require reasonable suspicion; border context analogies)
- Sitz v. Department of State Police, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (fixed checkpoints upheld; roving stops need suspicion)
- Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594 (1981) (suspicionless inspections in certain contexts)
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) (suspicionless inspections of regulated businesses)
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Assn., 489 U.S. 602 (1989) (administrative inspections with limited privacy interest)
- Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) (special needs and routine searches in schools)
- Perez v. State, ex rel. Dept. of Fish & Game, 51 Cal.App.4th 1168 (1996) (upholding certain vehicle stop/checkpoints by game wardens)
- Betchart v. Dept. of Fish & Game, 158 Cal.App.3d 1104 (1984) (game wardens’ entry/enforcement of hunting regulations)
- People v. Harbor Hut Restaurant, 147 Cal.App.3d 1151 (1983) (state interest in wildlife regulation supports enforcement actions)