People v. Jacobs

California Court of Appeal Oct 31, 1961 No. Crim. 7556Published

Before: Fourt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's conviction for possession of heroin was valid because the officers were invited into the home and the subsequent search was justified by the defendant's attempt to destroy evidence in their presence.

Issues

Whether the evidence obtained by police was the result of an unlawful search and seizure.
Whether the failure to reveal the identity of informers invalidated the probable cause for the arrest.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The appellant opened the gate to her property and invited the officers into her house.”

“What the officers saw in the appellant’s house justified a belief that a public offense was being committed in their presence. The right to break down barriers to save evidence from destruction is recognized.”

“The search and seizures were reasonable and the evidence was admissible under the circumstances.”

FOURT, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment and a purported appeal from the sentence in a proceeding wherein the appellant was convicted of possession of heroin.

In an information filed in Los Angeles County on July 5, 1960, the defendant was charged with possession of heroin on or about May 17, 1960; further it was charged that the defendant, on or about August 30, 1956, in the county of Los Angeles, had been convicted of a violation of section 11500 Health and Safety Code (possession of heroin).

The defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the prior conviction. A jury trial was waived and by stipulation the matter was submitted upon the transcript of the testimony taken at the preliminary hearing and the added testimony of a police officer.

The record discloses that the prosecution introduced into evidence the file in the previous case which contained the judgment clearly and unequivocally setting forth that the defendant had been previously convicted of possessing heroin as charged. The probation officer’s report in the case at bar, which the judge indicated he had read, shows specifically on its face the facts with reference to the previous offense, namely that the officers found six (6) bindles of heroin in defendant’s purse and the sentence therefor (90 days in the county jail and three years probation). In spite of the record in this ease the judge, for some unknown or at least unexpressed reason, saw fit to disregard the law made and provided for in such cases in that he did not find whether or not the defendant had suffered such previous conviction. (See Pen. Code, § 1158.) The defendant was thereupon sentenced as a first offender.

A résumé of some of the facts in the present case are as follows: A police officer (Grennan) of the narcotics division had information that the defendant previously had been arrested for and convicted of the possession of heroin. Approximately one week prior to the arrest of the defendant, the officer told Sergeant Burland of the narcotics detail that defendant “was still continuing with the narcotics traffic.”

Qvemrn

had received information concerning

the

activities

[589]

People v. Jacobs

AI Brief

FOURT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief