People v. Dukes

California Court of Appeal Nov 19, 1969 No. Crim. 3565Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the warrantless searches of the defendants' persons exceeded the scope permitted by the Fourth Amendment because the officers conducted intrusive searches of pockets without first performing a limited pat-down for weapons. Consequently, the marijuana evidence discovered during these illegal searches was inadmissible.

Issues

Whether a traffic arrest justifies a complete search of the arrestee's person for evidence of unrelated crimes without probable cause.
Whether the scope of a search incident to a traffic arrest for a jailable offense permits an officer to reach directly into a suspect's pockets without an initial pat-down for weapons.
Whether evidence obtained from an illegal search of a codefendant can provide probable cause to justify a subsequent search of the defendant.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“This search exceeded the scope permitted by the Fourth Amendment.”

“The court erroneously admitted the marijuana evidence found on Dukes and Mitchell.”

[915]

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

—Billy Wayne Dukes appeals his court-tried conviction for possessing marijuana (Health & Saf. Code,'§ 11530).

About 7:30 p.m. June 28, 1968, California Highway Patrol Officer Smith saw Dukes speeding south in his Pontiac convertible on Interstate 5 in San Diego County north of Oceanside. Pursuing Dukes, Officer Smith saw him following dangerously close to another car as a passenger in Dukes’ car, David Mitchell, drank beer from a paper bag covered bottle.

Calling for back-up help, Officer Smith stopped Dukes and asked for his driver’s license or other identification. Dukes had neither. Highway Patrol Officer Robinette arrived in response to Officer Smith’s call for back-up help as Smith returned Dukes to the Pontiac.

Dukes’ passenger, Mitchell, a codefendant at the trial, threw his partially filled beer bottle in the rear of the car. Smith ascertained the bottle contained beer, then escorted Mitchell back to the patrol car where Mitchell produced an out-of-state driver’s license. With Mitchell’s consent, Smith searched his wallet finding a military identification bearing the name Herman Holiday. Being dissatisfied with Mitchell’s identification, Smith arrested him for drinking in a car and took him into custody under Vehicle Code section 40302, subdivision (a), because of insufficient identification.

When asked what he did after arresting Mitchell, Smith said: “I started to search the defendant prior to placing him in the handcuffs, and as I reached into his left jacket pocket I encountered three objects. I pulled these out. They were hand rolled cigarettes.”

The three cigarettes taken from Mitchell contained marijuana. Smith arrested Mitchell for possessing marijuana. Smith then searched the Pontiac and found a packet of Zig-Zag cigarette papers in the glove compartment.

Officer Robinette saw Smith take the three marijuana cigarettes from Mitchell’s pocket and saw Smith break open one of the cigarettes. Robinette arrested Dukes for allowing an open container in the car and took him into custody because he had no identification. Robinette searched Dukes, starting from the top and working down. Robinette first “reached into his shirt pocket and found what appeared to be a cigarette wrapper with some debris.” Robinette did not first pat the outside of Dukes’ pocket nor did he see a bulge in the pocket that would indicate a weapon. He simply reached into the pocket “to see if there was possibly something that would be there of an offensive type.” The cigarette wrapper and debris

People v. Dukes

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief