People v. Galle

California Court of Appeal Aug 1, 1957 No. Crim. 5864Published

Before: Shinn

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the search of the defendant's premises was lawful because the defendant's mother voluntarily consented to the search, and such consent was not rendered involuntary by the mere presence of police officers.

Issues

Whether the consent given by the defendant's mother to search the premises was voluntary or the result of implied coercion.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence discovered during a search conducted with the consent of the defendant's mother.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“While there is reason for the view that a request or a demand by an officer for permission to search premises is to some extent coercive, considered alone, it does not render the consent involuntary as having been obtained by coercion.”

“it was held that a search consented to by a homeowner which was acted upon by the officers in good faith was not coerced or involuntary.”

SHINN, P. J.

The defendant above named was convicted in a nonjury trial of violation of section 11500 Health and Safety Code and the charge in the information that he had suffered a former conviction of the same offense was found to be true. He appeals from the judgment.

The offense proved was the possession of a quantity of marijuana found by officers in a jacket belonging to defendant which was hanging in a closet in defendant’s home. By stipulation the cause was tried upon the evidence introduced at the preliminary examination. The substance found by the officers, having been identified as marijuana, was offered in

[89]

evidence. Defendant, represented by counsel, objected to the offer and moved to suppress the evidence upon the ground that it had been discovered by the officers in the course of an illegal entry and search of the premises. The motion was denied and the sole question on appeal is whether the receipt of the substance in evidence constituted error.

Circumstances of the search were related by Officer Lestelle of the Los Angeles Police Department. He testified that on the afternoon of April 16, 1956, he received a telephone call from an Officer Cochran who stated that he had been informed by an unnamed person that the defendant who resided at 3176 Lindo was in possession of narcotics and that it was believed that they would be in his bedroom. The officers went to the address, knocked on the door, the call was answered by Mrs. Pelligrini, defendant’s mother; the officers informed her as to the information they had received and stated that they would like to search her son’s bedroom. Mrs. Pelligrini replied “Go right ahead.” Defendant was not home at the time. In addition to the marijuana found in the jacket the officers found a bottle containing pills which were found not to contain a narcotic and were excluded from evidence upon defendant’s objection. Later in the afternoon defendant returned and was questioned by the officers. Defendant stated that the clothes in the closet belonged to him, that the blue bottle did not belong to him and that he did not know how the marijuana had gotten into his jacket. There was a further conversation on the following day in which defendant admitted to the officers that he had purchased the marijuana for $5.00.

People v. Galle

AI Brief

SHINN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief