People v. Moore

ASHBURN, J.

Defendant, having been convicted of bookmaking, appeals from the judgment and an order denying her motion for new trial. Defendant voluntarily and fully confessed the crime to the police after her arrest, and her counsel do not now suggest that she is innocent. The only claim made in support of the appeal is that material evidence was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure and should not have been admitted at the trial.

On January 26, 1955, at about 2 ¡00 p. m., seven sheriff’s deputies and one officer of the Compton Police Department, went to a residence at 1816 Ezmirlian Street, in Los Angeles County, where Deputy Caraway, as he testified, looked through the dining room window and saw defendant seated at the dining table. Making such observations through a window does not constitute an unreasonable search and the officers were entitled to act upon the information thus obtained

(People

v.

Martin,

45 Cal.2d 755, 762-763 [290 P.2d 855]). Though the window had Venetian blinds there were apertures through which the officer could observe defendant. She was seated at the table with a telephone beside her, numerous pads and slips of paper in front of her; also a publication that Officer Caraway (who was stipulated to be an expert in bookmaking activities in Los Angeles County) identified to his own satisfaction to be a racing form known as the National Daily Reporter. Although he said on cross-examination that he could not positively identify it as such, he “was pretty sure

[872]

it was” a form. Of course, he did not have to be positive or possess evidence competent to prove the fact in court; a well-grounded belief was sufficient to lay the basis for a search without a warrant.

(People

V.

Boyles,

45 Cal.2d 652, 656, 657 [290 P.2d 535];

Willson

v.