People v. Smith

California Supreme Court Mar 27, 1958 No. Crim. 6139Published

Before: Traynor

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the officers had reasonable cause to arrest the defendant based on reliable informant information and that the evidence was not obtained through unconstitutional force. It further held that a variance between the date of the offense in the information and the proof at trial was immaterial.

Issues

Whether the officers had reasonable cause to arrest the defendant without a warrant.
Whether the evidence was obtained through conduct that shocks the conscience in violation of due process.
Whether a variance between the date of the offense charged and the date proved was material.

Disposition. affirmed

TRAYNOR, J.

The trial court sitting without a jury, found defendant guilty of a felony violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. It also found that he was previously convicted of narcotic addiction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11721), a misdemeanor, and sentenced him to imprisonment in the state prison for a term prescribed by law. (See Health & Saf. Code, § 11712.) Defendant appeals.

A police officer of the Los Angeles Police Department, on the day before the arrest, received information from an informer that defendant had just purchased a “spoonful of heroin” and that it would be on his person at a certain residence. The officer knew that defendant was a narcotic addict. On the day of the arrest, two officers approached the house in question and through a window observed defendant and a woman sitting on a bed, but saw nothing incriminating. They went to the front door and knocked. An elderly lady opened the door. The officers identified themselves, entered, and walked toward the room where they had seen defendant. One of the officers testified that the elderly lady then shouted, “Lawrence, the police are here.” The bedroom door was closed, but the officers did not know if it was locked. Defendant’s witnesses testified that the door was locked. When the officers entered the bedroom, they saw defendant move his hand to his mouth and told him to “Spit it out.” There is a conflict in the testimony as to whether defendant was choked by one of the officers. Defendant spat out a package containing five rubber balloons later shown to contain heroin. He admitted that the package was his and that he attempted to swallow it when he heard the police at the door. The officers then arrested him. The package containing the heroin was introduced in evidence at the preliminary hearing.

At the trial the transcript of the preliminary hearing was introduced in evidence. Defendant’s motion to suppress the

[151]

evidence on the ground that it had been obtained in violation of the rules stated in

Rochin

California,

342 U.S. 165 [72 S.Ct. 205, 96 L.Ed. 183, 25 A.L.R.2d 1396] and

People v. Smith

AI Brief

TRAYNOR, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief