People v. McGhee

California Court of Appeal Oct 23, 1961 No. Crim. 7508Published

Before: Herndon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's constitutional rights were not violated because he freely and voluntarily consented to the search of his residence, and the officers' initial visit to the home for investigation was not unreasonable.

Issues

Whether police officers acted unlawfully by visiting a residence to investigate based on an anonymous tip without prior investigation.
Whether the defendant's consent to search his residence was voluntary or the result of coercion by police authority.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“[I]t is not unreasonable for-officers to seek interviews with suspects or witnesses or to call upon them at their homes for such purposes.”

“The consent given by the defendant in the case at bar could hardly have been expressed in language better chosen to indicate that it was freely and voluntarily given.”

[459]

HERNDON, J.

Defendant was convicted of a violation of section 337a, subdivision 2, of the Penal Code as charged in the second count of an information alleging that he kept and occupied a certain house with paraphernalia for the purpose of bookmaking. A jury trial was waived, and pursuant to stipulation, the cause was submitted upon the reporter’s transcript of the preliminary hearing and some additional evidence was offered by the People. Defendant did not take the witness stand and offered no evidence in his defense.

On this appeal from the judgment and sentence

defendant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. His sole contention is that all of the incriminating evidence was obtained by an unlawful search and seizure in violation of his constitutional rights. The evidence relevant to the issue thus presented is undisputed.

On July 14, 1960, Gilbert Dominguez, a police officer of the city of Los Angeles, received a telephone call from a person who stated that he lived in the vicinity of 4406 South San Pedro, and who complained of “a lot of noise of gambling and betting on horses” at that address. The officer asked the name of the person making the telephone call, but received the answer, “I refuse to give my name, I want you to keep those people quiet.”

On that same day Officers Dominguez and McCann initiated an investigation by going to the address indicated by the anonymous complainant, arriving there at approximately 1:15 p. m. The structure located there was a one-story, four-room residence. Officer Dominguez went to the front door and knocked. When defendant came to the door, the officers identified themselves as policemen, informed defendant that they were making a bookmaking investigation, and requested his permission to look around. Defendant unlatched the screen door, opened it and stated; 11 Come in and look around all you want. I have nothing to hide.”

The officers thereupon entered the residence without a search warrant and found therein various papers, equipment and paraphernalia characteristic of a bookmaking establishment. The officers thereafter placed defendant under arrest and seized the items of incriminating evidence which they had

People v. McGhee

AI Brief

HERNDON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief