Carpio v. Superior Court
| Decision Date | 30 August 1971 |
| Citation | 97 Cal.Rptr. 186,19 Cal.App.3d 790 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Winston De Leon CARPIO, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, Respondent; The PEOPLE, Real Party in interest. Civ. 38366. |
Westwick, Collison & Talaga, and Robert J. Graham, Santa Barbara, for petitioner.
David D. Minier, Dist. Atty., A. Barry Cappello, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Zel Canter, Deputy Dist. Atty., Santa Barbara, for real party in interest.
No appearance for respondent Court.
On January 5, 1971, a Highway Patrol officer observed petitioner driving south on Highway 101 at a speed of approximately 75 miles per hour. The officer gave chase. When petitioner was aware of the officer he pulled onto the shoulder and then, when the officer was pulling in behind him, petitioner drove back onto the highway, causing the officer to pursue him further. Eventually, petitioner stopped and the officer interrogated him. Petitioner possessed only an expired temporary driver's license. The officer wrote a citation for the traffic violation and, in the interim, radioed for a warrant check. Petitioner volunteered that he had an unpaid traffic ticket in Imperial County. After a 40-minute delay, the Officer was advised that an Imperial County warrant was outstanding for petitioner's arrest. The officer took petitioner to the jail in Santa Barbara, where he was put through the routine booking process during which he was required to put his personal property on the desk. Included in the property was a closed cigarette package. The booking officer, without petitioner's consent, opened the package and found two marijuana cigarettes. Petitioner was then arrested for a violation of section 11530 of the Health and Safety Code. Petitioner's car was then searched, disclosing additional contraband.
Petitioner's motion to dismiss the information under section 995 of the Penal Code was denied and he has sought a writ of prohibition pursuant to section 999a of that Code. We conclude that the search of defendant's person at the police station was illegal and, therefore, that the contraband there found and thereafter found in his car was illegally seized. Since the present prosecution rests on that evidence, it follows that the 995 motion should have been granted.
On the record before us, we cannot say that the magistrate erred in regarding the 40-minute delay incident to the warrant check as not unreasonable or illegal. Unlike Willett v. Superior Court (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 555, 83 Cal.Rptr. 22, on which petitioner relies, the officer was faced with more than a minor traffic violation by a duly licensed driver. Here there had been not only excessive speed, and evasive action, but the driver had only a temporary permit which had expired. The officer testified that, in his experience, the failure of the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue a permanent license usually indicated that traffic tickets or warrants were outstanding. Under those circumstances, the warrant check was not mere curiosity, but a reasonable police effort. When petitioner volunteered the Imperial County violation, the further delay to check out that lead was entirely reasonable.
However, both the speeding violation and the Imperial County warrant were matters entitling petitioner to release on bail, by the jailor, pursuant to a fixed bail schedule in one case and the terms of the warrant in the other. It is admitted that there was no reason to assume that petitioner would not have been able to post the required bail bond had he been given the opportunity to do so. 1 Under these circumstances, we regard our holding in People v. Mercurio (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 426, 88 Cal.Rptr. 750, as controlling. It is true that Mercurio dealt with an arrest without a warrant; but we regard that difference as here immaterial. In both cases the arrestee was entitled to bail; in both cases he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McGaughran
...for example, when the driver takes unmistakably evasive action in the course of the stop (see, e. g., Carpio v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 790, 792-793, 97 Cal.Rptr. 186); 4 when there are objective indicia that the stopped vehicle may be stolen, such as missing or deliberately obs......
-
People v. Superior Court
...(People v. Marsh (1967) supra, 20 N.Y.2d 98, 102, 281 N.Y.S.2d 789, 793, 228 N.E.2d 783, 786; accord, Carpio v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 790, 793, 97 Cal.Rptr. 186.)Nothing we say here, however, is meant to cast doubt on the use by the police, when appropriate, of other precautio......
-
People v. Gilliam
...Cal.App.2d 448, 450, 77 Cal.Rptr. 438; People v. Elliott, 186 Cal.App.2d 185, 189, 8 Cal.Rptr. 716; 3 see Carpio v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.3d 790, 792--793, 97 Cal.Rptr. 186; and see People v. Grace, 32 Cal.App.3d 447, 453, fn. 3, 108 Cal.Rptr. 66, 69, 4 where the court expressed 'stron......
-
United States v. Robinson
...at ___, 472 F.2d at 1234; People v. Overlee, Colo., 483 P.2d 222, 223 (1971) (en banc); Carpio v. Superior Court, County of Santa Barbara, 19 Cal.App.3d 790, 793, 97 Cal.Rptr. 186, 188 (1971). Thus, according to Metropolitan Police Department regulations: "Before being placed in confinement......