People v. Medina

California Court of Appeal Mar 5, 1971 No. Crim. 18634Published

Before: Fleming

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that Penal Code section 647 remained a valid criminal statute despite an inadvertent legislative omission of its introductory clause, and that evidence seized during a lawful arrest based on the officer's reasonable conduct should not have been suppressed.

Issues

Did the inadvertent omission of the introductory declaration in Penal Code section 647 render the statute invalid during the interim period?
Was the evidence of dangerous drugs properly suppressed following the defendant's arrest?

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If the intent of the Legislature is clearly ascertainable, words inadvertently omitted from a statute may be supplied in the process of construction in order to effectuate the legislative intent.”

“The arrest, therefore, was proper, and since Medina’s breath did not smell of alcohol, it was reasonable for the arresting officers to make a cursory search of Medina’s person for drugs.”

Opinion

FLEMING, J.

Appeal by the People from the dismissal of an information.

On 9 March 1970 Jose Medina, Jr., was arrested on a public street in Azusa. At the time of his arrest he was staggering and swaying, he spoke with slurred speech, his eyes were watery, bloodshot, and glassy, and he was unable to pass a sobriety test. His breath did not smell of alcohol, and a post-arrest search disclosed dangerous drugs on his person. Medina was charged with a violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (f), being in a public place under the influence of liquor or drugs, and with two violations of Health and Safety Code section 11910, possession of dangerous drugs.

Section 647 provides: “Every person who commits any of the following acts shall be guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: . . . (f) Who is found in any public place under the influence of intoxicating liquor, [or] any drug ... or any combination ... in such a condition that he is unable to exercise care for his own safety or the safety of others. . . .”

In 1969 while the Legislature was adopting multiple amendments to section 647, it inadvertently failed to re-enact the section’s introductory declaration: “Every person who commits any of the following acts shall be guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.” On 23 March 1970 the introductory declaration was restored to the section by emergency legislation. The issue at bench is whether during the interim period section 647 stated a public offense for violation of which a person could be criminally prosecuted. The court below concluded it did not, and thereafter it suppressed the evidence of dangerous drugs and dismissed the information, We have concluded that the order of the trial court was erroneous.

1. Regardless of the validity of section 647, the evidence relating to

[848]

possession of dangerous drugs should not have been suppressed. The purpose of the exclusionary rule of evidence is to require the police to comply with constitutional prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

(People

People v. Medina

AI Brief

FLEMING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief