Stapleton v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County

• Decision Date: 26 December 1968
• Citation: 70 Cal.2d 97,73 Cal.Rptr. 575
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 447 P.2d 967 Charles G. STAPLETON, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest. L.A. 29590.

Page 575

73 Cal.Rptr. 575

70 Cal.2d 97, 447 P.2d 967

Charles G. STAPLETON, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent The PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

L.A. 29590.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

Dec. 26, 1968.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Feb. 19, 1969.

Robert R. Lee and Brent, Lee & Frank, Los Angeles, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Evelle J. Younger, Dist. Atty., Harry Wood and Robert J. Lord, Deputy Dist. Attys., for real party in interest.

TOBRINER, Justice.

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to compel the Superior Court of Los Angeles County to grant his motion pursuant to section 1538.5 of the Penal Code to suppress certain evidence seized from his automobile. The People contend that a private citizen conducted the search and the search therefore does not fall within the purview of the Fourth Amendment. Because of police involvement in the search we have concluded that petitioner's motion to suppress the evidence should have been granted.

On the night of November 23, 1967, Lee Bradford, a special agent for the Carte Blanche credit card corporation, together with agents from two other credit card corporations, went to the Highland Park police station in Los Angeles to aid in the arrest of petitioner, for whom the police had an outstanding arrest warrant for credit card fraud. The agents and the police agreed to meet near petitioner's home. After arriving at petitioner's home around midnight, the officers instructed Bradford and another agent to cover the rear of the house to prevent an escape while the two officers and the third agent went to the front door with the warrant. Bradford testified that he was armed at the time.

Bradford further testified to the following effect. Bradford entered petitioner's house after one of the officers requested him to do so and let him in through the back door. Bradford and the officers arrested and handcuffed defendant. Bradford then started searching the house; the officers were also engaged in searching the premises and Bradford assisted them. He shortly asked whether anyone had searched petitioner's car which, he remembered, he had seen parked some distance down the street. Bradford could not recall who had answered his question negatively. Bradford then asked where the keys were and someone indicated the keys lying on a table. Another agent handed the keys to Bradford, who then went outside to the car. In response to the question why he went out to the car, Bradford answered: 'Well, it's one of those things that we have done in making arrests, searching incidental to the arrest.' He also stated that he was looking for credit cards or merchandise which may have been purchased with cards, and admitted that he had no search warrant and that the petitioner had not given permission for the search.

Bradford searched inside the car, which was not locked, and then unlocked the trunk. In the trunk he discovered 60 canisters containing a tear gas-like substance. In order not to disturb the 'evidence,' Bradford closed the trunk and reported his discovery to the officers. One of the officers returned to the car with Bradford, opened the trunk, and retrieved the canisters. ¹

Petitioner was subsequently charged with possessing a 'shell, cartridge, or bomb containing or capable of emitting tear gas' in violation of Penal Code, section 12420. Petitioner moved to suppress the canisters under section 1538.5 of the Penal Code, and, following a hearing pursuant to that section, the motion was denied. This petition for a writ of prohibition followed.

I

The Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to the states, and evidence obtained in violation of that amendment is inadmissible in state courts. (Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081.) The Fourth Amendment does not apply, however, to searches by private individuals. (Burdeau v. McDowell (1921) 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048.) ²

The search of petitioner's car was clearly part of a joint operation by police and the credit card agents aimed at arresting petitioner and obtaining evidence against him. This official participation in the planning and implementation of the overall operation is sufficient without more to taint with state action the subsequent acts of such credit card agents. ³

In Byars v. United States (1927) 273 U.S. 28, 47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520, city police, then not subject to the Fourth Amendment, obtained a warrant--invalid by constitutional standards--to search the defendant's home for intoxicating liquors. After obtaining the warrant, but before commencing the search, Police Officer Densmore asked a federal prohibition agent, Mr. Adams, to joint the group making the search. Upon reaching the defendant's home Densmore assigned each member of the party to search a particular room of the house. Both Adams and a police officer named Taylor found counterfeit whiskey stamps. Although Adams had not initiated the search and had not directed the actions of Taylor or any other police officers, the Supreme Court excluded the stamps, including those found by Taylor. Justice Sutherland, speaking for the court, noted that Adams participated under the color of his federal office, and thus rendered the search in substance a 'joint operation' of local and federal authorities, and concluded that the legal significance of such a search was 'the same as though he (Adams) had engaged in the undertaking as one exclusively his onw.' (Byars v. United States, supra, 273 U.S. 28, 33, 47 S.Ct. 248, 250, 71 L.Ed. 520.)

United States v. Price (1966) 383 U.S. 787, 794, 86 S.Ct. 1152, 1157, 16 L.Ed.2d 267, illustrates the minimal extent of official participation needed to bring such group action within the purview of the Constitution. In Price the court held that the alleged murder of two civil rights workers by 18 men, including three Mississippi policemen, constituted 'state action' (which the court equated with action 'under color of law') in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 242. 'Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the prohibited action, are acting 'under color' of law * * *. To act 'under color' of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents.' (See also Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961) 365 U.S. 715, 725, 81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (restaurant located in a state-owned building part of a joint economic enterprise and thus subject to the Fourteenth Amendment); Weeks v. United States (1914) 232 U.S. 383, 398, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 (evidence barred which was taken from the house of the accused by a federal official acting 'under color of his office.').)

The well-coordinated joint operation conducted in the instant case by the police and the agents clearly falls under the rule laid down in Byars and Price. Bradford joined the operation and entered petitioner's house at the request and as an agent of the police. The agency did not end nor Bradford revert to private status when as part of that operation, although without a specific instruction from the police, Bradford searched petitioner's car. (See People v. Fierro, supra, 236 Cal.App.2d 344, 347, 46 Cal.Rptr. 132; compare People v. Moran (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 410, 415, 333 P.2d 243.) Accordingly, even though police officers did not direct Bradford to search the car, just as Adams had not directed Taylor to search the defendant's house in Byars, the evidence discovered by Bradford during that joint operation is inadmissible.

II

The instant case also resembles that dealt with in Moody v. United States (1960 D.C.Mun.App.) 163 A.2d 337. In Moody a Willie Johnson, after a series of thefts from his apartment, recognized some of the stolen goods in the apartment of defendant Moody. Johnson chased Moody into the street and held him until police arrived. Following Moody's arrest Johnson and a police officer returned to Moody's apartment. Johnson entered the apartment and handed the stolen articles to the police officer who remained in the hallway.

The court noted, 'there was no indication in the record that the officer did anything to induce Johnson's actions or that he made any effort to deter him.' (Moody v. United States, supra, 163 A.2d 337, 339.) Applying the silver platter standards laid down by Lustig v. United States (1949) 338 U.S. 74, 79, 69 S.Ct. 1372, 93 L.Ed. 1819, the court concluded 'that there was a participation by the arresting officer and that the complaining witness (Johnson) acted as an arm of the police in reducing the articles to possession. The construction to be attached to the Fourth Amendment * * *may be violated just as effectively through the intervening agency of one not a policeman. While no objection can be raised to the propriety of the arresting officer's conduct in merely viewing the articles from the adjacent hallway, we cannot characterize him as a willing but innocent beneficiary in Standing silently by while the appropriation was taking place.' (Italics added.) (Moody v. United States, supra, 163 A.2d 337, 340.)

In the instant case the Highland Park police, by allowing Bradford to join in the search and arrest operation, put Bradford in a position which gave him access to the car keys and thus to the trunk of petitioner's car. Thereafter the police stood silently by while Bradford made the obviously illegal search. Contrary to the assumption of the respondent court, the police need not have requested or directed the search in order to be guilty of 'standing idly by'; knowledge of the illegal search coupled with a failure to protect the petitioner's rights against such a search suffices. Here police permitted action by Bradford which probably constituted both a misdemeanor (Veh.Code, § 10852, tampering with a vehicle or the contents thereof) and a...