People v. Anushevitz
| Decision Date | 15 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 1557 |
| Citation | 183 Cal.App.2d 752,6 Cal.Rptr. 785 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Walter Paul ANUSHEVITZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
Edward P. Foley, Public Defender, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jack K. Weber, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
In an information defendant was charged with possession of a blackjack, in violation of Penal Code, § 12020. It also alleged that defendant had suffered two prior felony convictions. Defendant admitted the prior convictions and, after a jury trial, was found guilty of the offense charged and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for the term prescribed by law.
The evidence adduced at the trial disclosed that on December 26, 1959, Officer Foster of the California Highway Patrol received a radio message from the Barstow dispatcher stating that the Yermo Agricultural Station had called the dispatcher and informed him that a 1954 Chevrolet, back and white in color, and with Kentucky license plates, had just passed through the station. The message described the occupants of the car and said that there was no registration displayed on the vehicle and it carried no luggage or spare tire although the occupants said they came from Kentucky. The officer was instructed to stop the car and check it out.
Acting upon this information, the officer stopped the vehicle three miles east of Barstow on U. S. Highway 91. The automobile was being driven by a Billy Dungan and the defendant was on the passenger side in the front seat. The officer inquired as to the car's registration and was told that there was none. Dungan made conflicting statements as to why he did not have the registration. First, he said that he would not receive the registration until the vehicle was completely paid for, but then he said that the registration had been left at home in Kentucky. The officer also noted that there was no luggage in the vehicle and that it contained no spare tire or jack, and there was only one key for the ignition and trunk cover locks.
The officer then conversed with defendant and asked if he had any luggage. The defendant replied that he had exchanged it for gasoline at a service station near the Nevada State line. From where the officer was standing outside the car, he could see an overnight trip bag on the floorboard immediately behind the passenger's seat. Upon being queried about this bag, the defendant said that he did a lot of reading and the bag contained pocket books. The officer asked if the defendant would mind if he looked in the bag and the defendant said he would have no objection. The bag was then opened by defendant and the officer observed that it contained a towel. The defendant removed the towel from the bag at the request of the officer who then observed within the bag a 12-inch length of hose which was taped at both ends and weighted. The officer recognized this object as a 'sap' or blackjack. At the trial it was stipulated that this article was in defendant's possession and that he owned it.
Defendant did not take the stand and testify in his own behalf, neither did he testify as to the limited issue of search and seizure. His contention both at the trial and on this appeal is that the evidence was obtained by an illegal search and seizure. Defendant further contends that the stopping of the car constituted an arrest; that if a reasonable cause does not exist at the time of the arrest, an arrest cannot be justified by what a search which follows produces. He declares that his consent to the search was obtained through fear of the arresting officer. Citing People v. Brown, 45 Cal.2d 640, 290 P.2d 528; People v. Gale, 46 Cal.2d 253, 294 P.2d 13; Badillo v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 269, 294...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Machel
...outdoors at night); People v. Beverly (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 119, 19 Cal.Rptr. 67 (motorists at night); People v. Anushevitz (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 752, 6 Cal.Rptr. 785 (motorist--time of day not indicated); People v. King (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 386, 346 P.2d 235 (motorist at 1 p. m.).3 People......
-
People v. Manis
...cases but have been suggested by the following: People v. Anguiano, 198 Cal.App.2d 426, 18 Cal.Rptr. 132; People v. Anushevitz, 183 Cal.App.2d 752, 6 Cal.Rptr. 785; People v. Cowman, 223 Cal.App.2d 109, 35 Cal.Rptr. 528; People v. Beverly, 200 Cal.App.2d 119, 19 Cal.Rptr. 67; People v. Mart......
-
People v. Grubb
...83, 87, 25 Cal.Rptr. 57; see Mardis v. Superior Court (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 70, 74, 32 Cal.Rptr. 263; People v. Anushevitz (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 752, 755, 6 Cal.Rptr. 785; People v. Galceran (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 312, 316, 2 Cal.Rptr. 901; cf. Caldwell v. United States (8th Cir. 1964) 338 F......
-
People v. Green
...it: and other cases hold that it should not. (People v. Gorg (1955) 45 Cal.2d 776, 780--781, 291 P.2d 469; People v. Anushevitz (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 752, 755, 6 Cal.Rptr. 785.) If at a retrial of the present case the court determines that defendant's arrest was lawful and that he voluntari......