People v. Superior Court (Freeberg)

California Court of Appeal Mar 17, 1981 No. Civ. 61383Published

Before: Roth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that blanket, open-ended consents between police departments for cross-jurisdictional authority under Penal Code section 830.1 are valid and do not require separate, case-specific authorization for each investigation or arrest.

Issues

Whether Penal Code section 830.1 requires separate, express consent from a chief of police for each individual investigation or arrest conducted by an officer from another jurisdiction.

Disposition. Peremptory writ issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold that blanket consents are valid, that they may be open-ended, and that they need not be renewed for each separate case, investigation and/or arrest.”

“There is no requirement for separate consent for each individual investigation or arrest, and no requirement that such consent immediately precede the particular investigation or arrest.”

Opinion

ROTH, P. J.

Proceeding in mandate to require the superior court to vacate an order suppressing evidence. Peremptory writ issued.

Facts

Defendant and real party in interest Jan Freeberg was charged with having committed the felony of having sold marijuana in violation of

[652]

Health and Safety Code section 11360, subdivision (a). The offense was committed in the City of Pasadena, the investigating and arresting officers were police officers of the City of Glendale.

In 1978, the Chiefs of Police of the Cities of Pasadena and Glendale exchanged letters giving consent, pursuant to Penal Code section 830.1, subdivision (a)(2) as the subsection is now designated, that the officers of their respective neighbor should have authority to act as peace officers within the city giving consent. These blanket letters of exchange were still in effect on April 9, 1980, when Mr. Freeberg was arrested.

Officer Pierce was an undercover police officer assigned to narcotics investigations in the Glendale Police Department. On the basis of information received from an informant he went to a house at

19-Vi

Daisy Street in Pasadena and, posing as a buyer, personally bought a quarter of an ounce of marijuana from Mr. Freeberg for $50. Officer Pierce then signaled officers waiting outside, who announced themselves, entered the house, arrested Mr. Freeberg and obtained his consent to search the house where they found more marijuana. Mr. Freeberg was then transported back to the City of Glendale.

On motion to suppress all of the evidence, the superior court refused to suppress the evidence of the purchase since anyone, police officer or otherwise, could testify to that fact. The court did, however, grant the motion to suppress as to all evidence seized without warrant following the arrest holding, in effect, that there could be no blanket consent under Penal Code section 830.1, subdivision (a)(2) but rather there must be a separate, express consent for each specific investigation or arrest.

People v. Superior Court (Freeberg)

AI Brief

ROTH, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief