People v. Superior Court (Cope)

California Court of Appeal Mar 6, 1980 No. Civ. 57423Published

Before: Kaus

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that exigent circumstances justified a warrantless entry into the defendant's apartment because the presence of a large dog, firearms, and volatile materials created an imminent danger of fire or explosion.

Issues

Whether the facts known to the officer presented a sufficiently exigent set of circumstances to justify entering the apartment without a search warrant.

Disposition. Peremptory writ of mandate issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Exigent circumstances sufficient to exempt police officers from the need to obtain a search warrant exist when there is an emergency situation which requires “swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property”

“It does not require the ingenuity of a Rube Goldberg to imagine the unattended dog knocking over a can of volatile liquid or knocking over and discharging the shotgun, or both, and causing either a fire or an explosion.”

Opinion

KAUS, P. J.

The People seek a writ of mandate (Pen. Code, § 1538.5 subd. (o)) directing respondent court to vacate its order suppressing evidence seized from real party’s residence.

[188]

Facts

Carlos Mena lived in an apartment one floor above real party. On May 14, 1979, Mena saw real party leave his apartment, walk to an adjacent building, pour something from a can into a vent in the wall of the building, and ignite it. Mena’s wife called the fire department. A police officer, Darbyshire, also arrived at the location, having learned of the fire over his car radio. Although the fire had been extinguished by the time he got there, Darbyshire observed a blackening of the concrete surrounding the vent and a charring of the ground inside it. He spoke to a fire captain at the scene who advised him that the charring of the concrete indicated that the fire had been caused by a volatile liquid.

Darbyshire overheard Mena tell the fire captain that he had seen who started the fire and saw him point out the real party’s residence. Darby-shire learned from Mena

that he had seen real party carrying a red and white can to the scene of the fire before it started and that after it started real party returned to his apartment, that he was still in there and that he was alone. Mena also stated that he thought real party was crazy because he set off fireworks every night.

Darbyshire went to real party’s apartment, knocked loudly with his night stick and identified himself as a police officer. He heard a large dog barking inside, but got no other response. He continued knocking for about two minutes. Then the officer put in a call for a field supervisor. While he was waiting for the supervisor to arrive, Darbyshire heard a noise inside real party’s apartment, which he recognized as the sound of a shotgun being closed. He instructed people in the area to get away from in front of real party’s windows. He located a Pontiac in the apartment’s carport which neighbors had said belonged to real party.

People v. Superior Court (Cope)

AI Brief

KAUS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief