People v. Dean

California Court of Appeal May 20, 1957 No. Crim. 5891Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an arrest and search conducted without a warrant are lawful when based upon information provided by a reliable informant, and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in finding the officer credible.

Issues

Whether an arrest and search conducted without a warrant are lawful when based on information from a reliable informant.
Whether the trial court properly determined the credibility of the officer and the reliability of the informant.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“an arrest may be made by police officers acting solely on the advice of a reliable, confidential informant.”

“when the officer knows his informant and that the latter is reliable, he may and should act with the same diligence as if he were in possession of a warrant of arrest.”

“It is the officer’s credibility and the soundness of his reasons for relying upon his informant that must impress the court before it can determine that the officer was authorized to make the arrest.”

MOORE, P. J.

Appellant and her husband were tried upon an information charging three separate counts of illegal possession of narcotics. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500.) The husband was acquitted of all charges but appellant was convicted of counts I and II charging possession of heroin and eukodal, a derivative of opium. Her motion for a new trial and probation having been denied, she was sentenced to state prison but the court suspended the sentence and granted probation on condition that she serve one year in the county jail and refrain perpetually from further illegal use of narcotics. She bases her demand for reversal solely upon the concept that the evidence introduced against her had been procured by a violation of the exclusionary rule, announced in

People

Cahan,

44 Cal.2d 434 [282 P.2d 905]. A recital of the facts will disclose that such rule was not violated.

About 7:30 p. m. Officer Schmidt of the Los Angeles police was informed that Albert Dean was a peddler of narcotics and had a quantity in his home. Not knowing the address, the informant accompanied the officers to the home. Schmidt had previously received accurate information with respect to other crimes from the same informant; had twice acted upon such information and found it to be reliable. Acting pursuant to the information, Officers Schmidt and Petevich were directed to the Dean home by the informant. They had neither warrant of arrest nor search warrant. They entered, arrested the husband, searched the premises and obtained two bottles of benzedrine. After appellant denied that she had any other narcotics and the officers stated that a police matron would be summoned to search her, she announced that that would not be necessary and removed from her brassiere two bottles containing a large quantity of heroin. She declared that all narcotics in the house belonged to her; that she intended to sell them. The narcotics discovered by the search were found to be heroin, codeine, dihydrohydroxy and eukodal.

Not only did appellant present the drugs to the officers but

also she

took the stand to say that she had been in possession of the capsules of heroin, had purchased them from a man

[167]

People v. Dean

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief