People v. Allen

California Court of Appeal Mar 15, 1963 No. Crim. 1850Published

Before: Coughlin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that evidence obtained as a direct result of an unlawful detention and an impending unlawful search is inadmissible, as such evidence is tainted by the illegality of the detention.

Issues

Whether the search of a person unlawfully detained in jail and the subsequent seizure of narcotics violated the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Disposition. Reversed; appeal from order denying new trial dismissed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Evidence obtained from a defendant as a “direct result” or the “immediate product” of an unlawful arrest is obtained in violation of the constitutional guarantee against unlawful searches and seizures.”

“The search which led to the disclosure in question was a direct result of the defendant’s unlawful detention; was tainted by the illegality of that detention; and violates the constitutional guarantee in the premises.”

COUGHLIN, J.

The issue on this appeal is whether the search of a person unlawfully incarcerated in a jail, and the seizure of a narcotic in his possession which was revealed by this search, was illegal because in violation of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The defendant was arrested and placed in jail on a burglary charge; was not taken into custody under a warrant of arrest, as no complaint had been filed charging him with such, nor was there a showing that probable cause existed for believing that he had committed that offense; and, following a refusal to issue a burglary complaint against him, had been ordered released. In the meantime, two officers approached his cell; ordered him to step into an adjoining passageway; one of them started to search his bed, then noticed him take his hand from his pocket, cup it, put it to and place something inside his mouth; both of them then attempted to prevent him from swallowing the same and to recover it; engaged in a terrific struggle with him, in which they were assisted by three other officers; forced his mouth open with a metal spoon; found nothing inside; but did find a moist packet on the floor at the place where his head had been. Thereafter it was determined that the packet contained heroin. The defendant was charged with unlawfully possessing a narcotic,

vie.,

a violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code; was tried therefor; objected to the introduction of the packet of heroin discovered and seized after the aforedeseribed search, which was the basis of the charge against him, but his objection was overruled; was found guilty; moved for a new trial which was denied; and appeals from the order denying his motion for a new trial and from the judgment, contending that the packet of heroin in question was obtained from him illegally. This contention is meritorious and the judgment must be reversed. No appeal lies from an order denying a motion for a new trial and the attempted appeal therefrom must be dismissed.

(People

Eppers,

205 Cal.App.2d 727, 728 [23 Cal.Rptr. 222].)

[138]

People v. Allen

AI Brief

COUGHLIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief