Stern v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jun 10, 1971 No. Civ. 38126Published

Before: Jefferson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner's detention and subsequent arrest were illegal due to a lack of probable cause, rendering the search of his vehicle and the resulting evidence inadmissible. Consequently, the court ordered the dismissal of the information against the petitioner.

Issues

Whether the initial detention and pat-down of the petitioner were supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Whether consent to search a vehicle obtained following an illegal arrest and detention at gunpoint is valid.

Disposition. Peremptory writ issued

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There was no probable cause to arrest petitioner for any offense.”

“The search in the present case was made incident to an illegal arrest and was patently invalid and improper.”

“Consent secured at gunpoint following an illegal arrest cannot be relied upon to render the evidence obtained by a search and seizure pursuant thereto admissible.”

Opinion

JEFFERSON, J.

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to bar criminal proceedings against him in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

By information, petitioner was charged with possession of marijuana for sale in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11530.5. Petitioner moved to dismiss the information under Penal Code section 995. The court-denied the motion.

From the evidence received at the preliminary hearing the following facts appear:

On June 24, 1970, at approximately 10:45 p.m. Officer Charles Wilson and his partner, wearing sport clothes and driving in an unmarked vehicle, were on patrol duty in Sherman Oaks. When they were approximately 30 to 40 yards away they observed a parked vehicle adjacent to the roadway and Officer Wilson saw three males (one of whom was petitioner) standing near the rear of the parked car. As the officer approached the vehicle the young men started to leave. The officer stopped the police vehicle; he and his fellow officer alighted, and announced that they were police officers, and with guns in hand they walked up to the three persons, directed them to turn toward the parked car, and made a cursory search of their persons for weapons. The officer testified that in the pat-down he did not feel any weapons. He testified that, as to one of these three (not the petitioner), he could “observe . . . numerous half dollars, the silver variety, which aren’t in circulation any more.” He said he also could see “an extremely large amount of currency in his left front pants pocket which bulged considerably being folded once.”

[29]

Officer Wilson then left his partner to stand guard on the three individuals and went to the residence nearest the place where the vehicle was parked, which was in front of a vacant lot. He knocked on the door and, receiving no response, he jumped a 6-foot fence and went to the back entrance. He observed what appeared to be a tom screen on one of the kitchen windows, but he found the window secure. He returned to the vehicle and advised the young men in custody, including the petitioner herein, that they were under arrest for burglary. Several minutes after the arrest, Officer Wilson advised them of their constitutional rights.

Stern v. Superior Court

AI Brief

JEFFERSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief