People v. Gardiner

HERNDON, J. Defendants appeal from the judgments entered following a nonjury trial that resulted in their convictions of the crime of burglary. Appellants’ guilt being unquestioned, the sole question presented for our consideration is: Was the information possessed by the police at the time of appellants’ arrest such “as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the [appellants [161]were] guilty of a crime”? (People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 412 [2 Cal.Rptr. 14, 348 P.2d 577].) The record clearly dictates our affirmative answer to this question.

At approximately 8 :30 p.m. on the night of February 16, 1965, several units of the Arcadia police received a radio dispatch instructing them to proceed to a certain location to investigate a burglary then in progress. They were advised that the resident at 246 Arbolada had reported that persons whose car was parked in the street near his home were attempting to break into the residence located at 244 Arbolada whose owners were on vacation.

Officer Schneider, who was on lone patrol in the area when he received the general dispatch, testified that when he arrived upon the scene he observed appellants and another person seated in a relatively old car. The vehicle was a 1958 Chevrolet whose color was 1 ‘ an off-color white or a primer coat white.” The homes in the area were in the $50,000 to $100,000 range. Appellants were dressed in Levis. Officer Schneider quite wisely and quite properly approached the three men with drawn gun and ordered them to step from the car. As they did so, he observed a pair of brown, cotton gloves fall to the ground.

Officer Schneider thereupon ordered the three men to stand with their hands upon the roof until assistance arrived. Although a street light fell upon the rear of the car, the area was otherwise poorly illuminated and was very dark. During the minute or two that Officer Schneider kept the three men in this position until other units arrived, he could hear a fourth man walking through the leaves about the vacant home.

Such action on Officer Schneider’s part was appropriate •and commendable in every respect. As stated in People v. Koelser, 222 Cal.App.2d 20, 27 [34 Cal.Rptr. 718] ; “Our zeal to fend off encroachments upon the right of privacy must be tempered by remembrance that ours is a government of laws to preserve which we require law enforcement officers—live ones. Without becoming a police state, we may still protect the policeman’s status. ’ ’