Montgomery v. Superior Court In and For Alameda County

Decision Date05 December 1956
CitationMontgomery v. Superior Court In and For Alameda County, 304 P.2d 206, 146 Cal.App.2d 622 (Cal. App. 1956)
PartiesEarl MONTGOMERY, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY of ALAMEDA, and the Honorable William J. McGuiness, Judge pro tem. thereof, Respondents. Civ. 17411.
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals

George Nye, Public Defender of Alameda County, R. Donald Chapman, Asst. Public Defender, Oakland, for petitioner.

J. F. Coakley, Dist. Atty., of Alameda County, R. Robert Hunter, Chief Asst. Dist. Atty., Robert H. McCreary, Asst. Dist. Atty., Albert E. Hederman, Jr., Deputy Dist. Atty., Oakland, for respondents.

DOOLING, Acting Presiding Justice.

The petitioner has been charged with possession of marijuana. Health and Safety Code, section 11500. He seeks to prohibit further proceedings in his trial on the ground that the marijuana in questions was found on his person as a result of an illegal search.

Officer Ingram, who conducted the search, testified that he and other officers were directed by Sergeant Hilliard to go to a public lavatory in a park at 11th and Jefferson Streets. The sergeant told him that another officer had just telephoned to the sergeant from the residence of one J. D. Kirk, a known peddler of narcotics, and had said that he had just had a conversation on Kirk's telephone with one Charles Brown in which Brown had asked for the delivery to him of some heroin near this lavatory. The officers went immediately to the place of rendezvous and in approximately six or seven minutes an automobile stopped at the corner of 11th and Jefferson Streets and a man, whom Ingram recognized as Brown from a description furnished by Hilliard, got out and walked over to the lavatory 'and was hanging around the lavatory for a couple of minutes.' Tow other men, one of whom was the petitioner Montgomery, remained seated in the parked automobile from which Brown had alighted. While other officers approached Brown, Ingram and a partner went to the parked automobile and after a conversation in which petitioner denied any connection with narcotics Ingram made a search of his person and found a partly smoked marijuana cigarette in the pocket of his jacket.

Petitioner relies upon such cases as People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645, 290 P.2d 531, and People v. Schraier, 141 Cal.App. 600, 297 P.2d 81, to support his contention that the officer had no reasonable ground to search his person. Without detailing the facts of those cases they may be...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
6 cases
  • People v. Dabney
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 15, 1967
    ...571, 575--576, 1 Cal.Rptr. 656; People v. Green (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 886, 889, 313 P.2d 955; and Montgomery v. Superior Court (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 622, 623--624, 304 P.2d 206.) The authorities last cited demonstrate that the trial court was warranted in considering the prior conduct of th......
  • People v. Govea
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1965
    ...223 Cal.App.2d 196, 198, 35 Cal.Rptr. 754; People v. Green (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 886, 889, 313 P.2d 955; Montgomery v. Superior Court (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 622, 623, 304 P.2d 206.) The arrest and the search of defendants and their automobile not having been made on probable cause, the heroi......
  • People v. Harris
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1965
    ...407, 413(5), 2 Cal.Rptr. 14, 348 P.2d 577; People v. Miller, 176 Cal.App.2d 571, 575(1), 1 Cal.Rptr. 656; Montgomery v. Superior Court, 146 Cal.App.2d 622, 623(1), 304 P.2d 206.) Seizure of the plastic bag exposed by Mrs. Harris was not the result of wrongful assertion of authority by the o......
  • People v. Kameron V. (In re Kameron V.)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 15, 2012
    ...1143, 1158 [disagreed with on other grounds in Lockery v Andrade (2003) 538 U.S. 63, 71]; see also Montgomery v. Superior Court In and For Alameda County (1956) 146 Cal.App.2d 622, 623 ["the mere fact that one is in the company of another who is known or reasonably believed to have committe......
  • Get Started for Free