People v. Hidalgo

Opinion

ROTH, P. J.

Roy Hidalgo appeals from a judgment of conviction of a violation of Health and Safety Code section 11911, possession of dangerous drugs (amphetamine sulphate tablets). Appellant was charged by information filed on December 4, 1967, and convicted by a jury on November 25, 1968. A motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 was denied on November 19, 1968.

On November 5, 1967, at about 7 p.m., Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs Smith and Barlow were on patrol near Whittier Boulevard in Los Angeles County. As they approached a parking lot located near a beer bar, they saw two men acting in a suspicious manner standing beside the open trunk of a Corvair. One of the men, appellant, threw what turned out to be the

[528]

car keys under the car, while the other ran off with some object and entered the beer bar. He was not pursued by either officer. The officers approached appellant. When they arrived the trunk was closed.

Officer Barlow asked appellant, “what he was doing in the trank of the vehicle and if the vehicle belonged to him. . . . The [appellant] stated that he had not been in the trank of the car; that he did not own the vehicle; and that he was merely relieving himself or urinating in front of the car. ... A. Yes. And then I asked ... ‘If you don’t own the car, what were you doing in the trunk of the car?’ And the [appellant] said, ‘Well, it is my car. I just purchased it.’ ... A. We asked him his name. The [appellant] stated his name was Sol Zubiet. And that the registration in the vehicle was on the windshield and that he lived at—I don’t recall the address. I cannot recall the name of the street either.”

Appellant was asked if he had any identification. He produced a paid telephone bill with the name Hope Guerra. Appellant’s name was neither Zubiet or Guerra.

One of the officers retrieved the car keys which appellant had thrown under the car and asked what they were doing there. Appellant replied that that was where he always concealed keys. Appellant was then asked whether he could identify the contents of the trunk. Officer Smith testified: “A. I felt if he could identify the contents, why, we could establish positive ownership of the vehicle. Q. So that when you asked him that question, you were trying to identify whether or not Mr. Hidalgo owned the vehicle? A. I was trying to connect him with the vehicle or his rights to be in possession of it, yes. Q. At that time you suspected car burglary or car tampering, did you not? A. Yes, I did.” Officer Barlow testified: “Q. Officer, when you first approached this activity, what did you suspect? ... A. Well, I don’t really know whether I suspected narcotics activity or probably possibly attempted theft of a vehicle or burglary of a vehicle which is quite prevalent in that area. Q. But you would not eliminate any three of those? A. No.”