People v. Denman

California Court of Appeal Aug 25, 1971 No. Crim. No. 19084Published

Before: Jefferson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a police inventory search of a closed but unlocked attache case found in an impounded vehicle is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, as it constitutes a random search without a warrant or exigent circumstances.

Issues

Did the police have lawful authority to inventory the contents of the vehicle as part of the impound procedure?
Was there reasonable cause to search the automobile as an incident to the arrest of the respondent?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Purely and simply the police inventory conducted here was a police search. Therefore, we disapprove those cases which have suggested that a police inventory may be validated without reference to the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”

“To the contrary, a random search is the precise invasion of privacy which the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit.”

“Therefore, we conclude in the case at bench that there were no circumstances to justify the search of defendant’s vehicle without a warrant, which they did not have.”

Opinion

JEFFERSON, Acting P. J. Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana in violation of section 11530 of the Health and Safety Code. Defendant’s motion to set aside the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995 was granted and the court ordered the information dismissed. The People appeal pursuant to Penal Code section 1238, subdivision (a)(1). The facts pertinent for the determination of this appeal as set forth in the clerk’s transcript of the preliminary examination are as follows:

On May 4, 1970, Deputy Sheriff Griffith was driving a sheriff’s patrol vehicle northbound on Hacienda Boulevard in the number one lane. He observed defendant driving a 1959 Cadillac northbound in lane number two. Defendant made a quick turning movement across lane number one, into the left turn lane at Francisquito Street without giving any signal. The officer had to slow his own vehicle to avoid the possibility of contact. The officer stopped defendant’s vehicle and approached it from the driver’s side and asked defendant for his driver’s license. Defendant told the officer that he had lost his license and that he did not own the Cadillac. Officer Griffith thereupon arrested defendant for violation of Vehicle Code section 12951, subdivision (a) (driving a vehicle with no driver’s license in his possession).

[634]The defendant was handcuffed and placed in the rear seat of the squad car. Officer Griffith began inventorying the contents of the vehicle in preparation for impounding it. During the process of inventorying the vehicle, the officer observed an open can of beer on the floorboards in the front of the vehicle, near the driver’s side. He also observed an attache case lying on the rear seat which was closed but not locked. The officer opened the attache case to examine its contents. While checking the contents of the case, he discovered therein a plastic bag containing a green leafy substance resembling marijuana. The attache case and its contents were booked as evidence, and it was determined, pursuant to stipulation, that the green leafy substance was marijuana.

The officer testified that he arrested defendant under the authority of section 40302, subdivision (a) of the Vehicle Code, which provides in substance that any person arrested for a misdemeanor violation of the Vehicle Code shall be taken before a magistrate if the person fails to present his driver’s license or other satisfactory evidence of his identity for examination.

People v. Denman

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief