Cal.4: Vehicle “black box” could be searched without a warrant in vehicular manslaughter case

The “black box” in a vehicle was a part of the “instrumentality of crime” in this vehicle manslaughter case, and it could be seized and searched without a search warrant. Also, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the information. People v. Diaz, 213 Cal. App. 4th 743, 153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 90 (4th Dist. 2013):

In this case, defendant’s vehicle was itself an instrumentality of the crime of vehicular manslaughter. Defendant concedes it was lawfully seized. Consistent with the California Supreme Court cases discussed above, the officers’ “subsequent examination of the [vehicle] for the purpose of examining its evidentiary value [did] not constitute a ‘search’ as that term is used in the California and federal Constitutions. [Citations.]” (People v. Rogers, supra, 21 Cal.3d at pp. 549–550.)

. . .

As the trial court pointed out, the specific data obtained from the SDM was the vehicle’s speed and braking immediately before the impact. We agree that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in speed on a public highway because speed may readily be observed and measured through, for example, radar devices (e.g., People v. Singh (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th Supp. 13, 15 [112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 74]), pacing the vehicle (e.g., People v. Lowe (2002) 105 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 5 [130 Cal. Rptr. 2d 249]), or estimation by a trained expert (e.g., People v. Zunis (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 6 [36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 489]). Similarly, a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in use of a vehicle’s brakes because statutorily required brake lights (Veh. Code, § 24603) announce that use to the public. Thus, defendant has not demonstrated that she had a subjective expectation of privacy in the SDM’s recorded data because she was driving on the public roadway, and others could observe her vehicle’s movements, braking, and speed, either directly or through the use of technology such as radar guns or automated cameras. In this case, technology merely captured information defendant knowingly exposed to the public—the speed at which she was travelling and whether she applied her brakes before the impact. (See, e.g., Smith v. Maryland (1979) 442 U.S. 735, 741–745 [61 L. Ed. 2d 220, 99 S. Ct. 2577] [installation of a pen register at the telephone company’s central offices, at the request of police, did not constitute a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment because the pen register merely recorded the telephone numbers dialed from the petitioner’s home, and the petitioner could “claim no legitimate expectation of privacy,” because “[w]hen he used his phone, petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and ‘exposed’ that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business.”

We conclude there was no Fourth Amendment violation in the admission of SDM evidence.

The court also holds Jones’s trespass theory of no help.