People v. Harrell

HERNDON, J.

In a non jury trial appellant was convicted of possessing heroin and was sentenced to state prison.

[412]

He appeals from the judgment of conviction and states his two contentions as follows: (1) “The court erred in refusing to exclude the exhibits offered by the People following the refusal of the officers to disclose the name of an informant”; and (2) “Defendant’s arrest was without reasonable and probable cause and the subsequent search and seizure was unlawful. ’ ’

The instant ease is wholly without novelty either in its facts or in the legal issues which it tenders. Factually, it differs only in minor detail from numerous recently reported cases dealing with the problems of search, seizure, arrest, and the use of informants in the field of narcotic law enforcement. Since a reading of the lengthy recitals of the evidence, as set forth in the briefs of appellant and respondent, discloses no material disagreement between them with respect to the state of the record, we shall attempt to summarize the essential facts as briefly as possible.

Officers assigned to the narcotics detail had kept appellant under intermittent surveillance during a period of two or three months before the date of his arrest, July 23, 1958. According to the testimony of the arresting officers, they had received information which they regarded as reliable and which was of such nature that it caused them to suspect that appellant was actively engaged in the business of selling narcotics. On May 9, 1958, one Williams, who was under arrest on a narcotics charge, informed one of the arresting officers that appellant was a large dealer in heroin, and gave a detailed description of appellant and his automobile.

The officers testified that they had received similar information from two other sources which they considered reliable. The names of Williams, and of these other two informants, were disclosed in the course of the officers ’ testimony on either direct or cross-examination. Among other circumstances relied upon to justify the officers in their suspicions, and in their more or less continuous surveillance of appellant, were these: they knew that appellant was wanted in New Orleans on a narcotics charge; they had followed him to a certain hotel known to be a gathering place for persons dealing in narcotics ; and they had found in the possession of a person arrested on a narcotics charge a note bearing appellant’s first name and an address—343 Via Los Santos, at which appellant was thought to reside.