People v. Mims

California Court of Appeal Sep 24, 1992 No. A056615Published

Before: Reardon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the totality of the circumstances, including the officer's expertise, the high-crime location, the observed attempted transaction, and the defendant's subsequent flight and deceptive behavior, provided sufficient probable cause for a warrantless search.

Issues

Whether the totality of the circumstances provided probable cause for a warrantless search of the defendant's pocket.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that the facts support a finding of probable cause.”

“In our view, the inference of an interrupted drug transaction is sufficiently compelling as to overcome any inadequacy flowing from Brooks's inability to specifically observe the contents of the plastic bag.”

“It is the totality of the circumstances confronting the officer that must be assessed.”

9 Cal.App.4th 1244 (1992) 12 Cal. Rptr.2d 335 THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

LAMAR MIMS, Defendant and Appellant.

Docket No. A056615. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four.

September 24, 1992. [1246] COUNSEL

Charles H. James, Public Defender, and Jeffrey C. Bradley, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Ronald A. Bass, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald E. Niver and Bruce Ortega, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

REARDON, J.

Appellant Lamar Mims was convicted on his plea of guilty of possessing rock cocaine for sale and was admitted to probation. He appeals the superior court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. (See Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (m).) We affirm.

I. FACTS

Approximately 5:30 p.m. on the evening of May 15, 1991, Officers Brooks and Garcia were patrolling in the 800 block of 9th Street in Richmond in a "semi marked patrol unit." Each officer was in full police uniform. Brooks observed two males in front of a residence at 824 9th Street, one of whom was the appellant.

Brooks saw appellant extend his left hand toward the extended hand of the other man, who held a piece of green paper that "appeared to be U.S. currency...." As the officers approached within 20 to 25 yards, another male shouted "police." Immediately thereafter, appellant and the other male "pulled their hands apart and Mr. Mims [appellant] turned towards us." At that time, Brooks saw a plastic sandwich baggie in appellant's right hand, which appellant transferred to his left hand and then "put it in his left front pants pocket."

The buyer, i.e., the man with the green piece of paper in his hand, "ran westbound through the block along with the person who yelled police." Appellant walked up to the porch of the residence at 824 9th Street and knocked on the door. As the officers approached appellant on the porch, the front door opened and a female appeared. Officer Brooks asked the female if appellant lived at the residence, to which she replied "no."

People v. Mims

AI Brief

OPINION

REARDON, J.

I. FACTS

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

II. DISCUSSION

C. The Observed Transaction

III. CONCLUSION

NOTES

AI Brief