Department of Transportation v. State Personnel Board
Opinion
Opinion
Boren, J.
The Fourth Amendment “has never been interpreted to proscribe the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.” (Stone v. Powell (1976) 428 U.S. 465, 486 [ 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 , 96 S.Ct. 3037 ].) In this case, a state transportation employee is seeking to apply the exclusionary rule in a civil disciplinary proceeding, to bar introduction of incriminating evidence seized from his car and his pockets by the California Highway Patrol. We conclude that the exclusionary rule does not apply. Although an illegal search took place, it occurred during a criminal investigation, and was not conducted by the agency that employs the worker being disciplined. Excluding evidence in an administrative disciplinary proceeding would have no deterrent effect on a state law enforcement officer investigating reports of a crime occurring at another state agency.
FACTS
Appellant Threatens His Supervisor, Is Arrested, and Is Searched by the California Highway Patrol
In 2004, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) was summoned to investigate a disturbance at a Department of Transportation (Caltrans) facility in Ventura. Appellant Lee B. Kendrick III, a Caltrans…