Dyson v. State Personnel Board
California Court of Appeal
213 Cal. App. 3d 711, 262 Cal. Rptr. 112 (1989)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Monroe Dyson (plaintiff) was dismissed by the State Personnel Board (board) (defendant) from his position as a youth counselor with the Department of Youth Authority’s Preston School of Industry (Preston). Dyson’s dismissal was predicated on the admission at an administrative disciplinary hearing of evidence seized by Preston from a search of Dyson’s home. That search was initiated by Preston’s Chief of Security, Thomas Gold, who turned to the sheriff to assist in its execution. The evidence seized was turned over by Preston to the police for use by the district attorney in a criminal proceeding against Dyson that had been initiated on the complaint of Preston. The evidence was excluded from the criminal prosecution on grounds that the search of Dyson’s home violated Dyson’s constitutional rights to privacy. Nevertheless, the board retrieved the evidence after its suppression in the criminal proceeding and introduced it into evidence in Dyson’s administrative disciplinary hearing. Dyson appealed his dismissal and argued that the board should be collaterally estopped from denying the constitutional invalidity of the search of Dyson’s home and that the evidence obtained from that search should have been excluded from the administrative disciplinary proceeding conducted by the board.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blease, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
