Hacker v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Dec 20, 1968 No. Civ. No. 1054Published

Before: Stone

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a search of an outpatient's premises incident to a lawful arrest based on probable cause is valid, and that sufficient evidence existed to support the information charging the petitioner with possession of a narcotic.

Issues

Whether the search of the petitioner's premises was lawful incident to an arrest based on probable cause.
Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the magistrate's finding of probable cause regarding the petitioner's knowledge, dominion, and control of the narcotics.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A search without a warrant is proper where it is incident to a lawful arrest based on reasonable cause to believe that the accused has committed a felony.”

“These facts gave the officer probable cause to arrest petitioner for possession of narcotics and, incident to the arrest, to search the premises.”

268 Cal.App.2d 387 (1968) HAROLD DWAYNE HACKER, Petitioner,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. No. 1054. California Court of Appeals. Fifth Dist.

Dec. 20, 1968. Soares, Simpson & Rowson and William Silveria, Jr., for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Nelson P. Kempsky, David R. Cunningham, Daniel J. Kremer and James T. McNally, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest.

STONE, J.

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the Superior Court of Tulare County from proceeding in the case of People v. Hacker. The petition was brought pursuant to Penal Code section 999a after the court had denied a motion under Penal Code section 995 to set aside an information charging petitioner with violation of Health and Safety Code section 11500, possession of a narcotic.

The principal ground for his motion below and his petition to this court is that the narcotic which he is alleged to have possessed, and which was admitted in evidence over objection at the preliminary hearing, was seized illegally. He also asserts insufficiency of the evidence.

Following commitment to the Department of Corrections [389] and placement at the California Rehabilitation Center at Corona, petitioner was released in an "outpatient status" under the supervision of Field Agent Leigh Byrne. As an outpatient he was obligated to obey the terms and conditions imposed by the Rehabilitation Center. It was Agent Byrne's duty as supervisor to see that petitioner complied and if he had not, petitioner's outpatient status could be suspended by Byrne. On July 16, 1967, Byrne obtained a specimen of urine from petitioner, who was residing at his mother's home in Visalia. A laboratory test of the urine revealed a positive narcotics usage, so on July 22 Byrne ordered Detective Domier of the Visalia Police Department to "pick up" petitioner. He did so under the authority of Welfare and Institutions Code section 3151, which provides that:

Hacker v. Superior Court

AI Brief

STONE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief