People v. Lurie

California Court of Appeal Dec 18, 1967 No. Crim. No. 12981Published

Before: Lillie

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that police had probable cause to arrest the defendant without a warrant due to exigent circumstances and that the subsequent search of luggage was incident to that lawful arrest. Furthermore, the court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction based on the defendant's possession of recently stolen property and corroborating evidence of his flight and use of a fictitious name.

Issues

Did the police have probable cause to arrest the defendant without a warrant?
Was the search of the defendant's luggage, conducted at the police station, a valid search incident to arrest?
Was the evidence sufficient to support the defendant's conviction for burglary and grand theft?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the light of the emergency involved, an evaluation of the facts and circumstances confronting Sergeant Evans at the time he was required to act clearly supports the finding of probable cause for the arrest of defendants.”

“Where the officers seize evidence incidental to an arrest they may examine it at a place more convenient even though removed in time and place from where the arrest was made.”

“Possession of recently stolen property is so incriminating that to warrant conviction there need only be, in addition to possession, slight corroboration in the form of statements or conduct of the defendant tending to show his guilt.”

257 Cal.App.2d 98 (1967) THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

MARSHALL ROY LURIE, Defendant and Appellant.

Crim. No. 12981. California Court of Appeals. Second Dist., Div. One.

Dec. 18, 1967. Sherman & Sturman and Richard G. Sherman for Defendant and Appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and Howard J. Bechefsky, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

LILLIE, J.

D'Allesandro, Lynn Jenkins and Lurie were found guilty of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, 459) and grand theft ( 487, subd. 1, Pen. Code); the same charges were dismissed as to Jenkins on her motion (Pen. Code, 995). Defendants were sentenced to the state prison on each [100] count, but sentence on the grand theft conviction was stayed pending service of sentence on the burglary, the stay thereafter to become permanent. This appeal involves Lurie only.

On March 23, 1965, the apartment of Sylvia Elkins was forcibly entered and four furs and two sweaters worth $9,350 were stolen.

Appellant's main contention is that there was no probable cause for arrest and that the evidence, the result of an illegal search and seizure, was inadmissible. [1] In the absence of a warrant a peace officer may arrest a person whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested has committed a felony. (Pen. Code, 836, subd. 3; People v. Torres, 56 Cal.2d 864, 866 [17 Cal.Rptr. 495, 366 P.2d 823]; People v. Fischer, 49 Cal.2d 442, 446 [317 P.2d 967]; People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 412 [2 Cal.Rptr. 14, 348 P.2d 577]; People v. Schader, 62 Cal.2d 716, 722 [44 Cal.Rptr. 193, 401 P.2d 665].) [2] "To constitute probable cause for arrest, a state of facts must be known to the officer that would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe, or to entertain a strong suspicion, that the person arrested is guilty." (People v. Hillery, 65 Cal.2d 795, 803 [56 Cal.Rptr. 280, 423 P.2d 208]; People v. Cockrell, 63 Cal.2d 659, 665 [47 Cal.Rptr. 788, 408 P.2d 116]; People v. Stewart, 62 Cal.2d 571, 577-578 [43 Cal.Rptr. 201, 400 P.2d 97]; Jackson v. Superior Court, 62 Cal.2d 521, 525 [42 Cal.Rptr. 838, 399 P.2d 374].) [3] "No exact formula exists for determining reasonable cause, and each case must be decided on the facts and circumstances presented to the officers at the time they were required to act. (People v. Ingle, supra, at p. 412; People v. Ferguson, 214 Cal.App.2d 772, 775 [29 Cal.Rptr. 691].)" (People v. Ross, 67 Cal.2d 64, 69-70 [60 Cal.Rptr. 254, 429 P.2d 606].) With these rules in mind we review the information in the possession of Sergeant Evans at the time the defendants were arrested.

People v. Lurie

AI Brief

LILLIE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief