California v. Alvarez
Annotate this Case
The Orange County District Attorney appealed the dismissal of robbery charges against defendants Daniel Alvarez, Jr., Juan Jose Renteria, and Michael Abel Cisneros. The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the case based primarily on "California v. Trombetta," (467 U.S. 479 (1984)), arguing the prosecution and the police had failed to preserve evidence from two police controlled cameras in the vicinity of the robbery. The trial court determined on the night of the incident in question, Cisneros, specifically asked the senior officer on the scene, to check any relevant video. The detective replied, "If I had video cameras of what took place, that’s part of my job. My job is not to arrest people that aren’t guilty of something." Yet the detective later admitted he had never reviewed the video himself, nor asked anyone else to do so. He asserted it was not his responsibility. The court also found the issue of retaining video was raised during a hearing shortly after the defendants’ arrest, giving the prosecution notice the defense wanted to review any available video evidence. Given these facts, the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeal concluded the court correctly dismissed the cases of defendants Cisneros and Alvarez, but substantial evidence did not support the court’s factual findings as to Renteria. The Court therefore affirmed as to Cisneros and Alvarez and reversed as to Renteria.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.