People v. Locke

California Court of Appeal Jul 1, 1969 No. Crim. 3545Published

Before: Ault

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the police were excused from Penal Code section 844 compliance due to exigent circumstances, the search of the defendant was incident to a lawful arrest, and the quantity of marijuana found was a usable amount.

Issues

Whether the police violated Penal Code section 844 by failing to knock and announce their presence.
Whether the search of the defendant was incident to a lawful arrest based on probable cause.
Whether the marijuana found on the defendant constituted a usable amount.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Noncompliance with that section is excused where the officers may reasonably believe compliance would increase their peril (a shot was fired), an arrest would be frustrated, or evidence destroyed”

“The search of Locke was valid as incident to a lawful arrest”

AULT, J. pro tem.

Price Edwin Locke appeals a judgment (probation order) convicting him of possessing marijuana (Health & Saf, Code, § 11530), after his case was submitted to the court on the transcript of his preliminary examination.

The police arrested Locke in the same narcotics raid which resulted in the conviction of James Henry Clay (4 Crim. No. 3544). As we noted in

Clay,

the police raid was precipitated when a federal undercover narcotics agent, Lusardi, negotiated a purchase of five pounds of hashish from a man named Amaranthus in a South Laguna Beach house. Several people, including Locke, were present in the house. Locke did not participate in the sale transaction.

When Lusardi saw the hashish in the house, he alerted other officers and agents who converged on the house. As Lusardi, with two other agents, approached the rear of the house, he heard shuffling, people running and shouting, and a shot being fired. The agents forced their way into the house. Here, as in

Clay,

we reject the contention the agents should have knocked, announced themselves and stated their purpose in compliance with Penal Code section 844. Noncompliance with that section is excused where the officers may reasonably believe compliance would increase their peril (a shot was fired), an arrest would be frustrated, or evidence destroyed (the running and shouting reasonably indicated an attempted escape or narcotics being destroyed)

(People

Rosales,

68 Cal.2d 299, 305 [66 Cal.Rptr. 1, 437 P.2d 489]).

In the living room of the house the officers arrested Locke. They saw several clear plastic bags of marijuana in the room approximately 5 to 7 feet from where Locke stood. The officers searched Locke finding a plastic bag containing a quarter to one-half ounce of very finely manicured or granulated marijuana in his front pants pocket.

The search of Locke was valid as incident to a lawful arrest where the officers found him in a house where the sale of a large quantity of hashish was negotiated and Locke was standing next to a sizeable quantity of marijuana in the liv

[544]

People v. Locke

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief