People v. Lovejoy

California Court of Appeal Nov 9, 1970 No. Crim. 8624Published

Before: Elkington

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The superior court erred in setting aside the information because the magistrate's finding of probable cause was supported by substantial evidence, as the odor of burning marijuana provided sufficient cause for the search and arrest.

Issues

Whether the superior court may reweigh evidence or draw contrary inferences when reviewing a magistrate's decision under Penal Code section 995.
Whether the odor of burning marijuana emanating from a vehicle provides probable cause for a search and arrest.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is fundamental that on a dismissal motion under section 995 the superior court may not reweigh evidence, or draw inferences contrary to those reasonably drawn by the magistrate.”

“Upon detecting the strong odor of marijuana smoke emanating from the vehicle, Deputy Villarreal had reasonable cause to believe that the defendants were in possession of, and transporting, marijuana”

Opinion

ELKINGNGTON, J.

The People have appealed from a superior court order setting aside an information based upon a motion made pursuant to Penal Code section 995.

The order was grounded on the testimony taken at the preliminary examination. Following the earlier hearing, the magistrate, a municipal court judge, had found reasonable and probable cause to believe that each of the defendants, Dallas Arnold Lovejoy, Dennis Ray Venegas, Jimmy Lloyd Brummell, and Richard Chester Allen, were guilty of the offense of possessing marijuana, in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11530.

In the superior court proceedings the court concluded, contrary to the previous finding of the magistrate, that the only evidence against the defendants resulted from a police invasion of their Fourth Amendment rights.

It is fundamental that on a dismissal motion under section 995 the superior court may not reweigh evidence, or draw inferences contrary to those reasonably drawn by the magistrate.

(People

Massengale,

261 Cal.App.2d 758, 763 [68 Cal.Rptr. 415].) This rule applies with equal effect where an issue resolved by the magistrate is a claimed Fourth Amendment violation.

(Badillo

Superior Court,

46 Cal.2d 269, 271-272 [294 P.2d 23];

People

Heard,

266 Cal.App.2d 747, 749-750 [72 Cal.Rptr. 374].) The function of this reviewing court, then, is simply to determine if there is any substantial evidence (see

People

Daugherty,

40 Cal.2d 876, 885

[886]

People v. Lovejoy

AI Brief

ELKINGNGTON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief