People v. Doerr

California Court of Appeal Sep 24, 1968 No. Crim. 2989Published

Before: Brown (Gerald)

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's conviction for marijuana possession was supported by sufficient evidence and that his constitutional rights were not violated because he voluntarily consented to the search of his vehicle.

Issues

Whether the defendant's consent to search his vehicle was voluntary and constitutional.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of marijuana.
Whether the district attorney committed misconduct during trial proceedings.
Whether the trial court improperly restricted the defendant's cross-examination of witnesses.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Doerr’s consent was not in response to any assertion of authority and could only be deemed free and voluntary. His constitutional rights were not violated”

“The officer properly stopped, detained and investigated Doerr because of the ear’s faulty registration”

“He may not speculate on a favorable verdict then assert prejudicial misconduct for the first time after an adverse verdict is returned”

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

David Michael Doerr, convicted after jury trial of possessing marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11530), appeals from a probation order deemed a final judgment (Pen. Code, § 1237).

■On June 27, 1967, Doerr and two minor companions were

[38]

traveling in Doerr’s ear on Highway 80 in eastern San Diego County when Deputy Sheriff Bavensteyn stopped them because the car’s rear license plate had no 1967 registration sticker on it. Doerr met the deputy between the two cars; exhibited his operator’s license; explained the car had not been registered that year; said he bought the car from a Mr. Pastiorelli, had an endorsed pink slip and had already been cited for failing to register it. Doerr and the officer walked to Doerr’s car. While Doerr got the pink slip the officer saw the two young passengers inside and a case of beer under a pile of things in back. The officer confirmed the fact the passengers were minors. Doerr asked directions to a good camping spot.

Discussing Doerr’s possessing beer, the officer asked if any open containers were in the car. Doerr said no and invited the officer to search the vehicle. The officer declined.

Because the appearance date had passed on Doerr’s non-registration citation, the officer radioed to learn if there was a warrant for Doerr’s arrest.

When asked if he had any weapons, open containers or narcotics in his ear, Doerr again invited the officer to search the vehicle, saying he had a gun. The officer testified “There was no question but that he gave a definite and positive agreement” to search the car.

Doerr opened the trunk and pulled out a .22 caliber rifle. Searching the ear, the officer found some white pills wrapped in a paper towel. A passenger said they were vitamin C pills. The officer radioed the pills’ description to the sheriff’s business office for a check in the pharmacology book.

Continuing to search for an open container, narcotics or pills, the officer found two marijuana cigarettes in a jacket pocket. The officer asked whose jacket it was and received no response; he advised the three of their

Miranda

People v. Doerr

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief