Goodwin

Goodwin v. Superior Court

Good Law
108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 553·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 483·2001 Daily Journal DAR 6533·90 Cal. App. 4th 215·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5363
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 26, 2001B149818California4,427 words

Opinion

Opinion

Willhite, J.

Introduction

California law grants jurisdiction to issue many types of arrest warrants. Thus, for instance, when a criminal complaint is filed, a magistrate may issue an arrest warrant for the accused. (Pen. Code, § 813.) When the grand jury returns an indictment, the court may issue a warrant for the person indicted if he fails to appear for arraignment. (Pen. Code, §§ 945, 979.) Before the filing of criminal charges, the court may authorize a residential arrest by issuing a so-called Ramey warrant (People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal.3d 263 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 545 P.2d 1333 ]; now codifed as Pen. Code, § 817). The instant case, however, involves none of these standard warrants. Rather, it involves a court order of a novel kind—an ex parte order, issued before the institution of any criminal proceedings, compelling a person who is out of custody to appear at a lineup and submit himself to custody for that limited purpose. We hold that California law does not confer jurisdiction to enter such an order. Hence, we will grant a peremptory writ of prohibition restraining the trial court from enforcing it.

Factual and Procedural Background

On March 16, 1988, Mickey Thompson and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.