People v. Garnett

California Court of Appeal Feb 4, 1957 No. Crim. 5765Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the search of the defendant's room was lawful because it was supported by probable cause from a reliable informant, justified by the defendant's flight, and authorized by the defendant's voluntary consent. Additionally, the search was a valid incident to a lawful arrest.

Issues

Whether the search of the defendant's hotel room was illegal or unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Whether the information provided by a reliable informant constituted sufficient probable cause for the search and arrest.
Whether the defendant's flight and subsequent consent to search validated the officer's actions.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There was no proof that the search of room 203 was illegal or unreasonable.”

“That voluntary consent was alone sufficient authority for the search.”

“His arrest having been justified by the reports of the officer’s informant, by appellant’s flight and by discovery of opium in the latter’s open valise, a search of the room was an incident of his arrest.”

MOORE, P. J.

Appellant was convicted on four counts of violating section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, to wit, possession of opium and some of its numerous derivatives

on or about May 20,1956. Also, he was convicted of burglary for having entered the Guild Drug Store with intent to commit theft on May 19, 1956. The matter was submitted on the pre

[282]

fiminary transcript and the exhibits received in evidence before the municipal court. The burglary was determined to be of the second degree. Appellant was found to be a narcotic addict, hence, the court having made the prison terms run concurrently, recommended his treatment at the Facility of Vacaville.

Appellant seeks to effect a reversal of the judgment on the ground that his home was illegally searched.

Pharmacist George Guild closed his store at Hermosa Beach at 10 p.m. on May 19,1956. When he opened up the following morning, he found narcotics scattered over the floor, and that such drugs and money had been removed. Soon after the crime had been reported to the police, Officer Palmer was told by a reliable informant that there was supposed to be a quantity of narcotics in appellant’s room 203 in a local hotel. Because the informant had been found to be reliable for a period of over three years and because the officer knew appellant and that he occupied room 203 in the specified hotel, he followed the reputed addict to the hostelry and straightway knocked at appellant’s door. When his alarm brought no response, he procured the passkey from the landlady and knocked again before entering the room. At this juncture, one Thurston appeared, followed by appellant who suddenly dashed down the hall. He returned, however, on the order of the officer who demanded converse. Appellant protested that he had done nothing and told his official guest to “go ahead and look around. ’ ’ As a suitcase was laid upon the bed, appellant exclaimed: “I didn’t put that in there. Somebody planted something on me. I don’t know what is in there. ... I didn’t put it in there. Somebody planted it on me.”

When Officer Palmer found the valise contained 25 bottles, he placed appellant under arrest and passed the evidence to Deputy Sheriff Hatfield at 2 p.m. May 20 in the office of the Chief of Police of Hermosa Beach, appellant repeated that he had no knowledge of how the bottles got into his suitcase and insisted that someone must have planted them and asserted his readiness to account for his time during the preceding evening and the morning of the twentieth. However, when invited to do so, he maintained silence, whereupon the officers accompanied him back to room 203.

People v. Garnett

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief