People v. Adkins
Decision Date | 21 May 1969 |
Docket Number | Cr. 14500 |
Citation | 78 Cal.Rptr. 397,273 Cal.App.2d 196 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Donald Field ADKINS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Howard C. McArdle, Jr., Culver City, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Bruce M. Perlman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a final judgment of conviction of a violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code (possession of heroin).
On February 2, 1967, defendant was arrested at 1:00 a.m. in an apartment where he subleased a room from one Jean Mae Boswell. Present were Sergeants Maloney and Brown from the East Los Angeles Sheriff's Station, Sheriff's Deputies Figueroa, Loos and Hayes; and W. H. Damerell, a parole agent working for the Department of Corrections.
All six of the officers had come to the address in question because Sergeant Brown had told them that defendant was participating in numerous armed robberies and was also using narcotics very heavily. None of them knew that defendant actually lived at the apartment in question. That information had also been supplied by Sergeant Brown. No evidence of any kind concerning the source of all Sergeant Brown's information was ever produced, he not having been called as a witness.
The officers determined that they were at the right address by looking at the mailbox which, however, only identified the apartment, not the name of its occupants. They knocked on the door, identified themselves as sheriff's deputies, demanded that the door be opened, heard running footsteps, the closing of a door and the running of water. They broke in. Defendant was arrested for robbery by one of the sheriff's deputies, as well as by Mr. Damerell who informed him that he was under arrest for violation of parole. Heroin was found in the apartment and, later, defendant confessed.
Although challenged to do so, the People never produced Sergeant Brown. At the preliminary hearing the deputy public defender, while objecting to the admissibility of the contraband, made the following statement: * * *'(Italics added.) At the trial, the very first case cited by another deputy public defender was People v. Harvey, 156 Cal.App.2d 516, 319 P.2d 689. The People were therefore on ample notice that what defendant was challenging was their failure to produce any evidence on probable cause other than what the witnesses who testified had heard from Sergeant Brown. (Cf. People v. Escollias, 264 Cal.App.2d 16, 18, 70 Cal.Rptr. 65.)
It is now well established by a long series of Court of Appeal cases and recognized as sound by at least one Supreme Court case (People v. Lara, 67 Cal.2d 365, 62 Cal.Rptr. 586, 432 P.2d 202) that while it may be perfectly reasonable for officers in the field to break into homes and make arrests on the basis of information furnished to them by other officers, when it comes to justifying the total police activity in a court, the People must prove that the source of the information is something other than the imagination of an officer who does not become a witness. This was first recognized in People v. Harvey, Supra, 156 Cal.App.2d 516, 523, 319 P.2d 689, 693 where the court said: '* * * To allow this would permit the manufacture of reasonable grounds for arrest within a police department by one officer transmitting information purportedly received by him from an informer to another officer who had not received such information from the informer, without establishing under oath that the information had in fact been given to any officer by the informer, or indeed that there was an informer at all. * * *' 1
In People v. Lara, supra, 67 Cal.2d 365, 374, 62 Cal.Rptr. 586, 593, 432 P.2d 202, 209, the Supreme Court said: (Italics added.)
Among the more recent Court of Appeal cases recognizing the rule are People v. Escollias, Supra, 264 Cal.App.2d 16, 19, 70 Cal.Rptr. 65; People v. Cox, 263 Cal.App.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Duncan
...source of the information is something other than the imagination of an officer who does not become a witness.' (People v. Adkins, 273 Cal.App.2d 196, 198, 78 Cal.Rptr. 397, 398 (other citations omitted).) To hold otherwise would permit the manufacture of reasonable grounds for arrest withi......
-
Ojeda v. Superior Court
...202; Lockridge v. Superior Court (1969) 275 A.C.A. 798, 803--806, 80 Cal.Rptr. 223; and cases collected in People v. Adkins (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 196, 198--199, 78 Cal.Rptr. 397.) The distinction between the right to arrest in the field, and the subsequent justification of that arrest and t......
-
People v. Ramirez
...Cal.App.4th 652, 655, 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 47; People v. Poehner (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 481, 486-487, 94 Cal.Rptr. 94; People v. Adkins (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 196, 198, 78 Cal.Rptr. 397.) These cases, however, require that when the first officer passes off information through "official channels" tha......
-
Krauss v. Superior Court for San Joaquin County
...into police channels would permit the manufacture of reasonable grounds for arrest within a police department. (People v. Adkins (1969) 273 A.C.A. 211, 213-214, 78 Cal.Rptr. 397; People v. Cox (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 176, 185-186, 60 Cal.Rptr. 410; People v. Pease (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 442, 4......