Martinez v. People, 22929
| Decision Date | 03 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 22929,22929 |
| Citation | 168 Colo. 314,451 P.2d 293 |
| Parties | Raymond Sabino MARTINEZ, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Charles D. Pierce, Pueblo, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., George E. Deroos, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.
This is a search and seizure case. One Martinez was convicted by a jury of the crime of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, namely, cannabis sativa L, hereinafter referred to as marijuana, and as a refult thereof he was sentenced to a term in the state penitentiary. By writ of error Martinez seeks reversal of the judgment and sentence thus entered. As indicated, the only ground for reversal urged in this Court is that Martinez' rights under the provisions of the federal and state constitutions relating to search and seizure are claimed to have been violated by two officers of the Pueblo police department. Let us examine the facts and circumstances surrounding Martinez' arrest.
Two Pueblo police officers in the early morning hours were cruising in their squad car in a southerly direction on Main Street when they espied a car being driven in an erratic manner. Specifically, the driver of the other vehicle made a 'sweeping' right-hand turn in front of the squad car and then as it proceeded south on Main Street the driver 'drifted' from one lane to another of the three lanes reserved for south-bound traffic. Suspecting that the driver of the vehicle might be under the influence of intoxicating liquor and that a serious accident might ensue, the police determined to stop the car.
In stopping the other vehicle, the police first turned on their red emergency light. Then the police turned their white spotlight directly on the rear vision mirror in the car ahead. It was said that the spotlight 'bounced' off the rear view mirror and illuminated the interior of the car to the end that the police stated that they had an extremely clear view of activity within the vehicle. Both policemen testified that they noticed the person riding on the right-hand side of the front seat make certain 'strange movements.' This person partially turned around and, according to the police, he quite obviously appeared to be attempting to hide something.
The police succeeded in stopping the vehicle and the one police officer went up to the driver's side and directed the driver to get out of the vehicle. The second officer went to the right-hand side of the stopped vehicle and directed the passengers to get out of the car. Martinez was the passenger riding on the right-hand side of the front seat and he, and two others who were riding in the back seat, then got out of the vehicle. The police officers and the four then went back towards the police car where one officer began to question them.
The other police officer then went back up to the right-hand side of the vehicle and he testified that with the aid of his flashlight he then looked into the vehicle through the open window on the right-hand side of the vehicle. He stated that on the right-hand side of the front seat he saw a penny matchbox with a 'rubber band about it lengthwise' and some wheat straw cigarette papers. Both were in plain view, though about one-fourth of the matchbox was shoved back in between the cushion and the back of the front seat. As was indicated earlier, Martinez was the individual who was riding on the right-hand side of the front seat of the vehicle.
This particular officer testified that he had been on the Pueblo police department for some seven years and during that time had made numerous arrests of persons possessing marijuana. He outlined how he had 'worked with' the officers of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Bureau of Customs and the narcotic bureau of the Denver Police Department. Drawing upon his considerable experience in this field, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nanes
...Colo. 173, 401 P.2d 613; Lavato v. People, 159 Colo. 223, 411 P.2d 328; Lucero v. People, 165 Colo. 315, 438 P.2d 693; Martinez v. People, 168 Colo. 314, 451 P.2d 293; Falgout v. People, 170 Colo. 32, 459 P.2d 572; People v. Collman, Colo., 471 P.2d 421; People v. Martinez, Colo., 475 P.2d ......
-
People v. Waits, 27890
...had the requisite "good reason to believe" that the items were incriminating evidence. See Alire v. People,supra. Cf. Martinez v. People, 168 Colo. 314, 451 P.2d 293 (1969). At that point, he was entitled to seize and inspect the pliers as he did. Finally, his observation of the metallic sh......
-
People v. Feltch, 25104
...March 8, 1971; People v. Nelson, Colo., 474 P.2d 158 (1970); Falgout v. People, 170 Colo. 32, 459 P.2d 572 (1969); Martinez v. People, 168 Colo. 314, 451 P.2d 293 (1969); Lavato v. People, 159 Colo. 223, 411 P.2d 328 (1966); Gonzales v. People, 156 Colo. 252, 398 P.2d 236 (1965), cert. den.......
-
Falgout v. People
...who arrested him were acting with probable cause. This Court has had many opportunities to define the term 'probable cause.' Martinez v. People, Colo., 451 P.2d 293; Lavato v. People, 159 Colo. 223, 411 P.2d 328; Gonzalez v. People, 156 Colo. 252, 398 P.2d 236. In those cases the Court note......