People v. Arter
| Decision Date | 08 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6517 |
| Citation | 169 Cal.App.2d 439,337 P.2d 534 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gerald Lee ARTER, Defendant and Appellant. |
Sam Bubrick, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert M. Sweet, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant was convicted and sentenced to state prison for possession of heroin. His sole contention on appeal is that he was arrested without a warrant and without reasonable or probable cause, so that the incriminating evidence seized in the course of the ensuing search was inadmissible. By stipulation the case was submitted to the trial judge upon the transcript of the testimony taken at the preliminary examination.
On the night of June 13, 1958, Donald J. Johnson, the arresting officer, had a conversation with a man to whom he referred as 'the foreman'. Apparently the person referred to was the foreman of the Spray Electric Company, appellant's employer. Officer Johnson testified that he had known this informant for approximately one year and believed him to be a user of narcotics. The information imparted to the officer by this informant included the following: that a person known as Jerry Arter worked at the Spray Electric Company as a draftsman; that Arter worked at a front window, and that when a person desired to purchase heroin from Arter, he would walk back and forth past the window on the opposite side of the street until Arter recognized him; that Arter would then leave the establishment, go out to the sidewalk and there make the sale; that Arter was selling heroin at $3 per capsule; that Arter usually had the heroin in his possession when he entered the plant to work, and that Arter, himself, was an addict. The informant described Arter as being a slender, dark-haired young man of approximately 25, standing about five feet eight or nine inches in height. Further, the informant told the officer that Arter lived in a large apartment house on 5th Avenue, just below Pico, near a Sears and Roebuck store, and that Arter drove a black 1958 Volvo sedan which he parked in the garage near the rear of the apartment house.
Shortly after receiving this information, and by way of verifying it, officer Johnson went to the location referred to by the informant and there found an apartment house similar to that which the informant had described. The officer went to the garage at the rear of the apartment and upon opening the garage found therein a black 1957 or 1958 Volvo sedan. After obtaining the license number of the vehicle, the officer verified its ownership through the Department of Motor Vehicles.
It appears that the officer made certain inquiries and received information from the 'Record and Identification bureau'. Although it is not entirely clear from the record, it may be inferred that this bureau was an agency of the police department. When the officer was about to testify to the results of his inquiries at this bureau, counsel for defendant interposed an objection 'to anything he received from his record bureau, as being immaterial.' When this objection was sustained, the district attorney directed the witness to proceed with the following statement: 'Don't tell us what you learned from the record department, but tell us what else you did on checking out the information'. The officer then proceeded to relate that he and officer Korby went to the parking lot adjacent to the Spray Electric Company where they awaited the arrival of appellant.
At approximately 10 a. m. the officers observed a black 1957 or 1958 Volvo sedan enter the parking lot. As appellant got out of the vehicle, the officers approached him, stating that they were police officers. Observing that appellant had 'something in his hand', officer Korby extracted from appellant's left hand a package containing heroin. Another package of heroin was found in the glove compartment of appellant's vehicle.
Following his arrest, appellant admitted that the heroin was his; that he had bought three grams 'from a fellow named Pico, down around Figueroa'. Appellant further stated 'the reason I was late for work, I just scored this morning.' When asked 'Did you use any this morning' he replied 'Yes, I just had a fix before I got here'. Appellant further stated that he had been using heroin for approximately five or six years at the rate of two or three grams a day; that he sold heroin for $3 a capsule, and that he had paid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Swayze
...supra, 162 Cal.App.2d pp. 546-547, 328 P.2d pp. 223-224; People v. Dean, supra, 151 Cal.App.2d p. 167, 311 P.2d 87; People v. Arter, 169 Cal.App.2d 439, 442, 337 P.2d 534.) The weight to be accorded the information upon which the arresting officer acts is a question of fact for the trial co......
-
People v. Ambrose
...P.2d 535; People v. Carella, 191 Cal.App.2d 115, 12 Cal.Rptr. 446; People v. Taylor, 176 Cal.App.2d 46, 1 Cal.Rptr. 86; People v. Arter, 169 Cal.App.2d 439, 337 P.2d 534; Lorenzen v. Superior Court, 150 Cal.App.2d 506, 310 P.2d 180.) 'Reasonable cause has been generally defined to be such a......
-
People v. Fisher
...court's determination in the exercise of its sound discretion. People v. Taylor, 176 Cal.App.2d 4l, 1 Cal.Rptr. 86; People v. Arter, 169 Cal.App.2d 439, 337 P.2d 534; Lorenzen v. Superior Court, 150 Cal.App.2d 506, 310 P.2d 180. Inasmuch as the police officers had not warrant, for the arres......
-
People v. Garcia
...v. Superior Court, 150 Cal.App.2d 506, 510, 310 P.2d 180; People v. Gonzales, 141 Cal.App.2d 604, 607, 297 P.2d 50; People v. Arter, 169 Cal.App.2d 439, 443, 337 P.2d 534. Applying these principles to the factual picture disclosed herein, it is clear there is adequate support for the trial ......