People v. Williams

California Court of Appeal Apr 29, 1971 No. Crim. 18659Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the arrest of a passenger in a stolen vehicle was lawful because the passenger's prior joint activity with the driver provided reasonable cause to believe the passenger was a participant in the vehicle theft. Consequently, the subsequent search of the defendant was valid and the motion to suppress evidence was properly denied.

Issues

Whether the police had reasonable cause to arrest a passenger in a vehicle suspected of being stolen.
Whether the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search incident to arrest should have been granted.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The police officers, therefore, had reasonable cause to believe the car was stolen and reasonable cause to make an arrest.”

“When the police later found good cause to believe the vehicle was stolen, they could reasonably conclude that defendant was not merely a passenger in the vehicle but was a participant in the theft.”

“The arrest of Williams was valid, the motion to suppress evidence was properly denied, and the judgment is affirmed.”

[277]

Opinion

FLEMING, J.

Williams appeals a judgment committing him to the Youth Authority after his conviction for possession of a restricted dangerous drug (Health & Sjaf. Code, § 11910.)

Facts

About 10:30 in the morning on 8 December 1969 Police Officers Chapman and Lane, who had been assigned to patrol the Fremont High School area of Los Angeles, watched Williams and two companions standing around a hamburger stand near the school for approximately.five minutes. At 11 o’clock the same persons were still standing around the hamburger stand, but after a few minutes they got into a 1960 Chevrolet and drove off, Williams riding as a passenger. At 11:30 a.m. the officers stopped the automobile in which the group was riding to warn them of excessive-smoke violation and inform them, of the Penal Code which prohibits loitering about schools and public places at which children normally congregate. (Pen. Code, § 653g.)

As Officer Lane approached the automobile the driver opened his door to get out, and Lane saw that the ID tag of the vehicle had been riveted onto the front part of the left doorjamb. This was significant to Lane because on “a ’60 Chevrolet, the ID tag is sweat-blazed on, and it is not riveted.” On seeing the tag he told Officer Chapman he suspected the vehicle was a stolen car. When Chapman asked the driver for vehicle registration, the latter replied he had no registration because the automobile belonged to his brother. Although a check of the license-plate number produced a negative report, Chapman told the occupants he suspected the vehicle might be stolen and placed them under arrest.

At the police station Williams was searched, and a brown paper bag containing 198 red secobarbital capsules was discovered in his clothing. Williams also had 43 one-dollar bills and one twenty-dollar bill in his possession. In the opinion of Police Officer Welsch, a narcotic expert, the quantity of pills and dollar bills indicated the pills were probably possessed for purposes of sale. About 30 minutes after the arrest the police learned that the 1960 Chevrolet, was in fact a stolen car.

The Issue—Legality of Arrest

People v. Williams

AI Brief

FLEMING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief