People v. Drake

California Court of Appeal Jul 21, 1966 No. Crim. 11560Published

Before: Frampton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that police officers conducting a lawful investigation of a vehicle they reasonably suspected to be stolen did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they discovered contraband in plain view while checking the ignition. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant's incriminating statements were admissible because they were made after he had been properly advised of his constitutional rights.

Issues

Whether the search of the defendant's automobile violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Whether the officers had probable cause to investigate the vehicle as potentially stolen.
Whether the defendant's confessions or admissions were the product of an illegal search or obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In this situation it was not only proper but it was the duty of the officers to make an investigation of the vehicle in order to ascertain whether or not it had been stolen”

“To examine the wiring of the ignition to see if it had been “hot-wired” was a proper step to ascertain whether the vehicle had been stolen”

“the officers were not engaged in the search for contraband nor were they attempting to make an arrest, and they were not obligated under the law to ignore the contraband which came to their attention accidentally”

ERAMPTON, J. pro tern.

The defendant appeals from an

[561]

order granting probation following his conviction upon the charge of possession of marijuana in violation of section 11530 of the Health and Safety Code.

The defendant was charged by information filed on March 12, 1965, with the crime of possession of marijuana in violation of section 11530 of the Health and Safety Code. His motion to set aside the information under the provisions of section 995 of the Penal Code was heard and denied on March 23,1965, and he thereupon entered his plea of not guilty.

The cause was tried before the court sitting without a jury, a jury trial having been duly waived, and the defendant on July 9,1965, was found guilty as charged. A probation report was ordered, and the hearing thereon and the matter of the pronouncement of judgment and sentence was continued to August 9, 1965. On the latter date, after hearing on the application for probation, the court suspended further proceedings and placed the defendant on probation for the period of two years on the condition, amongst others, that he pay a fine in the sum of $300 plus penalty assessment through the probation officer in such amounts and in such manner as the probation officer shall prescribe. The appeal is from the order granting probation. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. 1.)

It is urged that the order should be reversed on the follow? ing four grounds: “I. The search of appellant’s automobile was a violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth. Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

“II. The manner in which the search was conducted was unreasonable.

“III. There was no probable cause to believe that the automobile had been stolen.

“IV. Any confession or admissions the appellant might have made were the product of the illegal search. ’ ’

The facts are in substance as follows: Donald Edward Cornwell and Robert Morris Bell were police officers for the City of Long Beach, and were on patrol in a police vehicle on the morning of February 17, 1965. Between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m., while cruising in the police vehicle, they observed a car parked on the service road to the east side of Clark Avenue and opposite a residence at number 2470 Clark Avenue, later ascertained to be the Douglas residence.

People v. Drake

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief