People v. Sexton

ASHBURN, J. Convicted of possession of narcotics (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500) with a prior conviction of the same type of offense, defendant appeals from the judgment. [804]His sole contention is that indispensable evidence was obtained through an unlawful search and seizure.

On August 9, 1956, Officer Petievich of the Los Angeles Police narcotic division was advised by a confidential informant that defendant had heroin on his person. The informant gave the name and description of defendant and said he could be found at or near the corner of Fifth and Stanford Streets. Thereupon Petievich, with Sergeant Guindon and another officer, went to that location. They arrived within five minutes after receiving the information and found defendant there. They were able to identify him. He was arrested and Sergeant Guindon searched his person finding a brown paper strapped under defendant’s arm which proved to contain four bindles of heroin. Defendant then said “that he picked these up and paid $20 for them and that that was all he had.”

Appellant asserts that the officers had no basis for the arrest except that furnished them by the informant, which is conceded. From this predicate counsel argues that this was not adequate to constitute reasonable or probable cause and therefore the seizure was incident to an unlawful arrest and constituted a violation of the rule of People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434 [282 P.2d 905, 50 A.L.R.2d 513],

The contrary has been ruled in numerous cases. People v. Gonzales, 141 Cal.App.2d 604, 606 [297 P.2d 50]; People v. Montes, 146 Cal.App.2d 530, 532 [303 P.2d 1064] ; People v. Garnett, 148 Cal.App.2d 280, 283-284 [306 P.2d 571]; People v. Penson, 148 Cal.App.2d 537, 539 [307 P.2d 24] ; People v. Deem, 151 Cal.App.2d 165, 167 [311 P.2d 85] ; and People v. Hood, 150 Cal.App.2d 197, 200-201 [309 P.2d 856], uphold this proposition and were decided by this division of this court. Each of them declares that information obtained from a reliable informant may afford sufficient basis for an arrest for felony and an incidental search if the trial judge in his discretion holds that the officers did believe and rely upon the informant and were reasonably justified in so doing. In the Gonzales case the informer was a known and trusted operative and his information was held sufficient basis for a valid arrest. At page 608 it was said: “The officer’s information must have come from a reliable source and the officer must act in good faith in testifying that he had received his information from a reliable person, and such good faith must pass the scrutiny of the trial judge. No abuse of discretion having been shown, the court’s ruling