People v. Richards

California Court of Appeal Aug 9, 1977 No. Crim. 29737Published

Before: Kaus

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while the defendant's arrest was illegal due to a lack of probable cause, the judgment must be affirmed because the defendant invited the error by successfully objecting to the admission of evidence regarding his post-arrest statements.

Issues

Whether the defendant's warrantless arrest was supported by probable cause.
Whether an illegal arrest alone mandates the suppression of subsequent statements.
Whether the defendant's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by successfully objecting to the admission of evidence regarding the defendant's statements.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The illegal arrest does not, however, necessarily taint any statement thereafter made.”

“An illegal arrest, alone, is utterly irrelevant.”

“Since defendant himself asked for the erroneous ruling which prevented the People from sanitizing defendant’s statement or statements, he was left with nothing but an illegal arrest.”

Opinion

KAUS, P. J.

A two-count information charged defendant with burglary (count I) and forgery (count II). After a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to section 1538.5 of the Penal Code was denied, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to forgery. The burglary count was eventually dismissed. Defendant appeals from the judgment (order granting probation).

[513]

The only issue on appeal relates to the trial court’s ruling on defendant’s section 1538.5 motion. That motion rested on the premise that defendant’s warrantless arrest was without probable cause and mandated suppression of later statements made by defendant to the police.

Section 1538.5 is a proper means for raising the issue that an admission or confession is the product of an unlawful arrest—a seizure of the person in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

(People

Massey

(1976) 59 Cal.App.3d

777,

780-782 [130 Cal.Rptr. 581];

People

DeVaughn

(1977) 18 Cal.3d 889, 896-897, fn. 6 [135 Cal.Rptr. 786, 558 P.2d 872].) The illegal arrest does not, however, necessarily taint any statement thereafter made.

Brown

Illinois

(1975) 422 U.S. 590, 604 [45 L.Ed.2d 416, 428, 95 S.Ct. 2254], permits the People to shoulder the burden of proving that the statement is not a product of the primary illegality. (See also

People

DeVaughn, supra,

People v. Richards

AI Brief

KAUS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief