People v. McGlory

California Court of Appeal Apr 29, 1964 No. Crim. 8648Published

Before: Roth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the police search of the appellant and his apartment was lawful, as the initial stop and search for weapons were justified by suspicious circumstances and the subsequent search of the apartment was conducted with the appellant's voluntary consent. Furthermore, the court affirmed that possession of narcotics does not require exclusive control of the premises where they are found.

Issues

Whether the police were justified in stopping and searching the occupants of the vehicle.
Whether the appellant's consent to search his apartment was voluntary while under arrest.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of narcotics found in an apartment occupied by others.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The right to investigate gives rise to the right to conduct a reasonable search for weapons in order to protect the safety of the officer.”

“The lone fact that consent to the search was given when appellant was under arrest, is not sufficient to negate the consent.”

“Finding narcotics in a place under the possession and control of the appellant is sufficient to show possession under Health and Safety Code, section 11530. Exclusive possession is not required.”

ROTH, J.

Appellant was convicted under Health and Safety Code, section 11530, for possession of a narcotic, to wit: marijuana, on or about June 24, 1962. Count one of the information charged possession of narcotics seized at the time

[764]

of arrest. Count two involved narcotics seized after a subsequent search of appellant’s apartment.

The record shows that appellant, a Miss Thomas and one Singleton were sitting in the front seat of a parked car during the early morning hours of June 24, in an area designated by the police as a high frequency narcotics area. Appellant raised his hand over his head as two plainclothes officers of the Los Angeles Police Department drove by. One of the officers testified this hand movement, the character of the neighborhood and the early morning hour, aroused his suspicion. They stopped to interrogate the occupants of the car.

Asked by one of the officers what they were doing, appellant answered he was taking Miss Thomas home. Miss Thomas confirmed this. During the brief interrogation the officer turned his open flashlight into the ear and noticed a bulge between Miss Thomas' breasts. Officer Anderberg asked her what the bulge was and Miss Thomas replied “What bulge, Officer?” Officer Anderberg forthwith ordered the occupants out of the car and both officers began a search for weapons. Miss Thomas was again asked about the bulge and this time asserted in a normal tone of voice that appellant had put it there and she didn’t know what it was. Appellant was standing approximately

feet away at this time and said nothing. Singleton said nothing. Miss Thomas removed what turned out to be a bag of marijuana. The three were then placed under arrest.

Anderberg testified that after ordering the three persons into a police car, which had stopped at the scene, while the events detailed above were taking place, he asked appellant if he could search his apartment and appellant said, “Yes,” and removed the apartment key from Ms keyring and gave it to the officer, saying that the rooms were unoccupied at the time. The officers went to the apartment, three blocks from the scene of the arrest, and used the key to enter. The officers neither knocked nor announced themselves, and upon entry found appellant’s daughter and two other persons in the frontroom. A search produced another bag of narcotics. Appellant asserts illegal search and seizure. Appellant argues that the federal rules of search and seizure as interpreted in

People v. McGlory

AI Brief

ROTH, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief