People v. Monson

California Court of Appeal Nov 22, 1972 No. Crim 21803Published

Before: Cobey

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that police surveillance and investigation of a suspect do not require the same probable cause as an arrest, and that officers acting outside their jurisdiction possess the same arrest powers as private citizens.

Issues

Whether probable cause is required to initiate police investigation and surveillance of a suspect.
Whether Los Angeles police officers lacked jurisdiction to arrest the defendant in Burbank.
Whether the trial court prejudged the defendant's motion to suppress evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Fourth Amendment protects persons from unreasonable searches and seizures.”

“The instant case contains no evidence that any intrusion into appellant’s privacy occurred at the time appellant was followed to the fur store by the investigating officers”

Opinion

COBEY, J.

Harry Randall (“Doc”) Monson appeals from a judgment of conviction of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496) entered, upon his plea of nolo contendere, following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence made pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5. The certificate of probable cause, required by Penal Code section 1237.5, has been filed. The appeal lies (Pen. Code, §§ 1237, subd. 1, 1538.5, subd. (m)), but is without merit.

Appellant advances the following grounds for reversal. First, he contends that there was no probable cause for his warrantless arrest, since it was based upon “search and seizure and investigation” which themselves lacked probable cause. Second, he argues that the Los Angeles City police were without jurisdiction to arrest him. in Burbank. Third, he claims that the trial judge prejudged his motion pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5 before all the evidence was adduced and the matter was submitted.

Facts

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the People, as we are bound to do (see

People

Reilly,

3 Cal.3d 421, 424-425 [90 Cal.Rptr. 417, 475 P.2d 649]), we proceed to set forth the pertinent facts, which are undisputed.

On February 26, 1970 two Los Angeles City police officers were proceeding to their station when they saw appellant driving beside them. They recognized him as “Doc” Monson, a known burglar and receiver of stolen property. During the preceding five years they had received intelligence information concerning appellant’s criminal activity from fellow police officers. It was usual police procedure for the officers, who- were assigned to the burglary and receivers of stolen property detail, to investigate persons with criminal backgrounds to- see what they were doing. They followed

[938]

appellant and ran a registration check on the automobile he. was driving. It was registered to him. They observed him stop in front of a retail fur store, enter the store and exit three minutes later with the store owner. Appellant was carrying a fur jacket which he placed in the trunk of the car. He removed a fur-collared gray coat and a shopping bag therefrom, and reentered the store with the owner. Thereafter, appellant got back in the car and drove away.

People v. Monson

AI Brief

COBEY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief