Probable Cause Arrest Concerns

Summary

Probable cause requires reasonable grounds for arrest. Improper service of restraining orders can affect contempt charges. Stay-away orders with shared property access complicate enforcement. Deputies must identify the primary aggressor in disputes. Inconsistencies in discovery, such as body-camera footage, can challenge the prosecutions case. Consult a criminal defense attorney for tailored advice.

Full Conversation

I have a california issue. I have a client who called * for help she thought her ex boyfriend was trying to break into her adu apartment. He was drilling open the gate. She was in panic also and the dispatch sent the ambulance. When the deputies arrived they arrested her. She appears to have been the only calling party into the station and if not at least the very first caller AND second. She was asking for help and she was the one arrested. The allegation was a chro violation. the chro had been granted by default a few days earlier. they lived on the same property but different structures and there was a stay aaway order for * yards except the order also states it doesn't prevent you from coming to and from your home. Regardless, the fact SHE called for help and she was arrestsed I believe negates probable cause. Is there any supporting case law on this?
There are cases that may support the argument that probable cause did not exist for your client’s arrest, especially if her actions were consistent with calling for help under duress. Here are some general pointers:
- People v. Wetzel (*): Probable cause requires facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime was committed. If your client was the victim and called for help, this could raise questions about the deputies' judgment.

- Penal Code § *: California law emphasizes the importance of investigating domestic violence calls thoroughly. Officers should determine the primary aggressor and not automatically arrest a caller in distress.
- Stay-Away Order Exceptions: If the order allowed both parties access to their homes, it complicates enforcing a *-yard distance, especially on shared property. Probable cause might falter if your client complied with the order.
You may want to consult a local criminal defense attorney for case-specific strategies or expert testimony.
an abusive partner falsely claimed ownership of the home and helped convert an attached garage into her living space. After she contacted the true owner and sought time to move, the partner, his sister, and daughter locked her out, cut utilities, damaged property, stole mail, stalked and harassed her, while portraying her as a homeless squatter. Despite nearly * calls for help, deputies accepted the family’s story without investigation. The sister obtained a civil-harassment order by default after her disability-accommodation request was not honored. On Oct. *, deputies entered her yard, filmed her from ladders, and confronted her before service was confirmed in CLETS. On Oct. *, after she called * because her partner was drilling into her gate, she approached deputies from the alley and was arrested. She faces two contempt counts, spent 34 days jailed, and has worn GPS for eight months. Discovery conflicts with the complaint, body-camera footage, and service records
Your client's situation raises serious legal concerns, particularly regarding probable cause, due process, and enforcement of court orders. Here are key legal points:
- Probable Cause: Her * call and compliance with the stay-away order may suggest she was not violating the law. Cases like *People v. Wetzel* emphasize the need for reasonable grounds for arrest.
- Improper Service of Orders: If the civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) was not properly served before her arrest, this could affect the validity of the contempt charges. Service must comply with California law and be confirmed in CLETS.
- Primary Aggressor Determination: Under Penal Code § *, deputies should identify the primary aggressor in domestic disputes. Failure to investigate thoroughly may demonstrate bias or negligence.
- Disability Accommodations: If the CHRO was granted by default due to unmet disability accommodations, this could also be grounds to challenge the order.
- Discovery Conflicts: Any inconsistencies in body-camera footage, complaints, or service records might be used to undermine the prosecution’s case.
Consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney is essential to challenge these charges, file motions regarding improper service, and potentially seek redress for any rights violations.