People v. Sirak

California Court of Appeal Dec 12, 1969 No. Crim. 3576Published

Before: Coughlin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A search of an automobile is lawful as an incident to an arrest if the officer possesses probable cause to arrest at the time of the search, regardless of whether the officer has subjectively formed an intent to arrest or evaluated the evidence.

Issues

Whether there was probable cause to search the defendant's automobile.
Whether a search is valid as an incident to a lawful arrest if the officer has not yet formally arrested the defendant or subjectively determined to do so.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A search as an incident to a lawful arrest is authorized if the information possessed by the officer furnishes probable cause to arrest even though, prior to the search, he does not evaluate the sufficiency of the evidence”

“Where probable cause to arrest exists before a search is made, its legality is not affected by the fact the search precedes rather than follows the arrest.”

[610]

Opinion

COUGHLIN, J.

Defendant was charged with the offense of possession of marijuana; made a motion to suppress evidence respecting marijuana taken from his automobile which was heard upon the transcript of the preliminary hearing and denied; was convicted following trial by the court without a jury; was placed on probation, the court declaring the offense a misdemeanor; and appeals, contending the court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

The sole issue for determination on appeal is whether there was probable cause to search defendant’s automobile resulting in the discovery and seizure of marijuana.

On May 12, 1968, at 2 a.m., defendant was driving an automobile at 50 miles per hour in a 35 mile zone; was followed by an officer in a police car who displayed its red lights; but did not stop until the officer sounded the police siren. After sounding the siren, the officer noted defendant’s automobile go toward the curbing; switched the lights of the police automobile to high beam; and saw defendant reach down below the front seat of the automobile toward the floorboard, toward his feet. Defendant’s automobile struck the curbing and stopped. Defendant traveled over a half mile from the time he was given the red light signal until he finally came to a stop. The officer asked defendant, who remained in his automobile, for his driver’s license; noted the odor of alcohol on his breath; directed defendant to step to the sidewalk; noted, as he walked, defendant “was very unsteady on his feet and as he stepped onto the sidewalk, he had difficulty in keeping his balance”; talked to defendant further; and asked him to remain on the sidewalk while he, the officer, proceeded to conduct a search of the automobile.

The officer testified he was of the opinion defendant was under the influence of an alcoholic beverage; “felt” he was going to arrest defendant at that time; but did not then “place him under arrest.” The officer also testified the fact defendant reached down below the front seat of his automobile toward the floor caused him to believe defendant was attempting to conceal something beneath the front seat; he “felt it could be a weapon or anything”; but that, before the search, he had no idea what it might be.

People v. Sirak

AI Brief

COUGHLIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief