Rhd Supra For Sale, Arrests in most criminal cases, including DUI, are made without a warrant. The first Rhd Supra For Sale principle of California criminal defense law advocacy is that the State has the burden to justify a warrantless search and seizure, Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971) 403 U.S. 443, 455, People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268, 1297 [Williams I], because warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively illegal. Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 357, People v. Laiwa (1983) 34 Cal.3d 711, 725. Specifically, warrantless liberty infringements are \"per se unreasonable,\" People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 673, unless the State can show the narrow exception which applies thereto. Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984) 466 U.S. 740, 749-750.
To effectuate that allocation of burdens, a Rhd Supra For Sale major procedural device has been recognized as inhering in the nature of that allocation: the major pleading effort, upon written motion, is initially on the State of California to advance its justification for a warrantless liberty infringement. Wilder v. Superior Court (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 90, 96-97. California\'s Supreme Court tardily boarded that long departed train and finally gave its weighty imprimatur to the compelled and established rule. People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 136 [Williams II].
The result \"[i]f the prosecution fails to carry its burden [of justification for the warrantless infringement], the defendant need do nothing more to be entitled to suppression of the primary evidence (against the Rhd Supra For Sale accused).\" Williams I, supra @1300 [emphasis added].
Although the defendant usually has the initial responsibility of raising the suppression issue, \"when [he so raises], he makes \'a prima facie case\' when he establishes that the arrest or search was made without a warrant and ... \'the burden then rests upon the prosecution to show proper justification.\'\" People v. Manning (1973) 33 Cal.App.3d 586, 600; see also Williams II, supra @134.
While that burden shift by \"warrantlessness\" is clear, and has always been the law for those who did not succumb to the temporary contrary heresy, it still causes some confusion in some quarters, as it appears \"too pro-defendant.\"
