People v. Covan

California Court of Appeal Feb 25, 1960 No. Crim. 7064Published

Before: Shinn

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's conviction was proper because the officers had probable cause to arrest based on their own observations of criminal activity, rendering the disclosure of the confidential informant unnecessary and the search lawful.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to order the disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant.
Whether the evidence was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“But disclosure may not be required where there was probable cause apart from the informer’s communications.”

“In our opinion, probable cause for the arrest was shown by Jones’ testimony as to appellant’s activities inside the house, which clearly warranted the deputy in a belief that Covan was committing a felony.”

“What Jones observed by looking through the window was not the product of an illegal search.”

SHINN, P. J.

In a court trial, De Forest Wilson Covan was found guilty of an offense of possessing heroin and an offense of possessing marijuana and he appeals from the judgment.

Roy M. Jones, a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy, was the chief witness for the People. The following is the substance of his testimony. Upon receiving information from a confidential informant that Covan was “capping,” Jones and three other deputies went to appellant’s home. Jones looked through a side window into the sunken dining room and ob

[418]

served appellant and another man sitting at a table directly in front of the window; there were scissors, balloons, gelatin capsules and a quantity of a white powder on the table; appellant was facing the window; he was filling the capsules with powder; in the opinion of the deputy, based on many years’ experience in conducting narcotics investigations, appellant was ‘1 capping ’ ’ or preparing heroin for distribution or dosage. The deputies broke into the house and placed Covan under arrest. They searched his person and found heroin and marijuana. Appellant admitted to the deputies that the narcotics were his; he was planning to use the marijuana and sell the heroin. When asked on cross-examination to reveal the source of the information he received, Jones refused to answer upon the ground that the name of his informant was privileged. Appellant’s counsel then moved to strike the deputy's testimony and the motion was denied by the court.

Covan took the stand to deny his guilt but it is not contended on the appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. Appellant argues that the court should have ordered disclosure of the name of Jones’ informant and that the contraband was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure. The arguments are without merit.

Where the prosecution seeks to show probable cause for an arrest and search by testimony as to communications from an informer, the identity of the informer must be disclosed when the defendant seeks disclosure or such testimony must be stricken on proper motion of the defense.

(Priestly

People v. Covan

AI Brief

SHINN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief