People v. Williams

California Court of Appeal Sep 12, 1975 No. Crim. 8005Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the suppression of evidence obtained during a warrantless, exploratory search of airline baggage by law enforcement officers who lacked probable cause and entered a secured area as trespassers.

Issues

Whether the trial court's findings of fact regarding the lack of probable cause and the officers' status as trespassers were supported by substantial evidence.
Whether a warrantless, exploratory search of airline baggage by law enforcement using a narcotics-detection dog in a secured area violates constitutional protections.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The court found as a fact and concluded as a matter of law the deputies and Bourbon had no probable cause to enter the airline baggage room for the purpose of having Bourbon inspect the baggage for contraband before it was loaded on the airplane.”

“The officers’ conduct was illegal, a gross departure from constitutional precepts.”

“Substantial evidence supports the superior court’s findings and order.”

[348]

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Bourbon’s Nose Knows, or the Case of Bourbon’s Bust

The People appeal an order dismissing their action on the court’s own motion (Pen. Code, § 1385) following the suppression of evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5).

As is often necessary to say for the benefit of an appellant, we recite the evidence most favorably in support of the trial court’s order to suppress, and follow the well-established rule, recently reiterated in

People

Superior Court

[Keithley], 13 Cal.3d 406, 410 [118 Cal.Rptr. 617, 530 P.2d 585]: “A proceeding under section 1538.5 to suppress evidence is a full hearing on the issues before the superior court sitting as a finder of fact. [Citations.] The power to judge credibility of witnesses, resolve conflicts in testimony, weigh evidence and draw factual inferences, is vested in the trial court. On appeal all presumptions favor proper exercise of that power, and the trial court’s findings—whether express or implied—must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.]”

On June 6, 1974, Arlis Lee Nash was in the United States Navy, working as a member of its narcotics addiction team in marijuana detection. He was assisted by his dog Bourbon. Bourbon had been raised and tutored in marijuana detection by Chief Petty Officer Billy Smith, the trainer of the first marijuana dog in the Navy. Smith gave Bourbon to Nash. Bourbon’s skill in sniffing.out marijuana had achieved an accuracy of 92 percent in tests which had been conducted, beginning two years before. Although Bourbon had never graduated from or been certified by any marijuana sniffing school, he had been certified by the Commander, Navy Air Force, Pacific Fleet. Bourbon’s experience included a lot of sniffing in military barracks checks where, apparently unhampered by any Fourth Amendment problems, he would ferret out as many as 10, 15 or 20 marijuana objects a day.

Nash was also an unsalaried reserve deputy sheriff. In that capacity he, along with Bourbon, met Deputy Sheriff Richard D. Perkins in front of the San Diego International Airport, about 8:50 p.m., on June 6, 1974. The deputies were in plain clothes. Without a search warrant and without notice or knowledge of the possible presence of any narcotics,

People v. Williams

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief