People v. Baca
| Decision Date | 19 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 7029 |
| Citation | 7 Cal.Rptr. 864,184 Cal.App.2d 693 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jacqueline Louise BACA and Rudy R. Baca, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Walter L. Kroneberger, Jr., Torrance, for appellants.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ernest E. Sanchez, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Separate informations were filed against the defendants: One charged that Rudy Baca violated section 11500, Health and Safety Code, in that he unlawfully had marijuana in his possession on March 18, 1959; the other charged that Jacqueline Louise Baca violated the same section in that she unlawfully had heroin in her possession on that date. These cases were consolidated, and each defendant was found guilty as charged. A motion for a new trial was made and denied as to each defendant. Rudy was sentenced to one year in the County Jail. Jacqueline was placed on probation for three years. Rudy has appealed from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial. Jacqueline has appealed from the order granting probation (§ 1237, subd. 1 Penal Code) and the order denying her motion for a new trial.
The sheriff's office of Los Angeles County had information from a person whose reliability had not been established that Rudy was engaged in the sale of narcotics from his residence during the evening hours. As a consequence, his residence was placed under surveillance. On the evening of March 16, 1959, the officers observed several different vehicles parked in front of the Baca residence at different times.
On the evening of the 17th, at approximately 7:30, three persons arrived at the Baca residence in an automobile. One left the car and went up to the house; someone opened the door and stood inside the screen; after three or four minutes, the person at the screen door disappeared and then came back and opened the screen door and remained there for a couple of minutes. He then went inside the house and reappeared at the front bedroom window, which faces onto the porch. He opened the screen of the bedroom window, and the police observed a hand and arm extend out of the window toward the person on the porch. This latter person then returned to the autombile and entered the rear seat. The car left immediately and was followed by the police. The car which was being pursued was overtaken while it was stopped by a red light traffic signal. Two deputy sheriffs 'jumped' the stopped car. The person in the rear seat of the vehicle was observed to place his hand to his mouth. One of the deputies entered the rear seat and a struggle ensued with the occupant, one Diaz. All three occupants of the car were placed under arrest. Diaz was found to have fresh hypodermic marks on this person, and admitted that he was using narcotics. He told the police that he had gone to the Baca residence to purchase narcotics but denied that he had actually made a purchase. He also denied having had any narcotics on his person and denied swallowing any. The other two occupants of the car stated that Diaz had asked them to take him to the Baca residence but had not told them why he wanted to go there.
The next evening the officers saw Rudy leave his home in his automobile. Two officers followed it. They lost sight of it but later observed it once again in the area. The officers thereupon re-joined the others, who had Rudy's residence under surveillance. Included in the group were officers from the Torrance police station. Officer Berman and two other officers approached the Baca residence. Berman knocked on the door. After a lapse of three or four minutes a female voice asked 'Who's there?' Berman inquired, 'Is Rudy home?' The voice replied, 'No, just a minute.' Approximately four minutes later Mrs. Baca came to the door and opened it. Berman again inquired, 'Is Rudy home.' Mrs. Baca stated that he was not. Berman then said, 'I came to see him about some business.' Mrs. Baca replied: 'Well, he will be back later.' At that point Berman identified himself and his fellow officers as Sheriff's narcotic officers. He opened the screen door, walked in, and advised Mrs. Baca that she was under arrest for violating the state narcotic laws. At that time other officers entered from the rear. About 20 minutes later Rudy drove by. He circled the block two or three times at a very slow speed. He then pulled into the driveway, honked his horn, backed out, and honked his horn again. At the suggestion of Berman, Mrs. Baca went to the door and gave Rudy the name of a person whom she said wanted him on the telephone. Rudy immediately left at a high rate of speed. He was followed by two police officers who arrested him five blocks from his residence. He was taken back to his house.
A search was made of the residence. A green leafy substance, which proved to be marijuana, was found behind a headboard in the bedroom. The police told Rudy that both he and his wife were going to jail because they didn't know whose marijuana it was. Rudy then stated, The officer also discovered a box containing empty No. 5 gelatin capsules in the house. Such capsules are used in the narcotic traffic in handling and disposing of heroin. The defendants were taken to the Torrance Police Station, where Mrs. Baca was searched by a policewoman. Five balloons containing 73 capsules of heroin were removed from her private parts. Mrs. Baca told the police that the capsules had been hidden in the cabinet of a high-fi set. She said that they belonged to her husband and that when she heard the officers knocking on the door she had taken them from their hiding place and secreted them on her person.
Neither defendant took the witness stand. Diaz was, however, called by the defendants. He testified that he had been arrested by the police on the evening of March 17th and had been interrogated by them. He denied that he told them he had gone to the Baca residence to purchase narcotics. He stated that his purpose in going there was to seek information about a possible position. He denied putting his hand to his mouth when the officers approached the car in which he was riding. He claimed that he only made a defensive move toward his face.
In seeking a reversal defendants contend that there was no reasonable cause to arrest either of them, and that the search of their residence was not incident to a lawful arrest. 'Reasonable cause has been generally defined to be such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime.' People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 412, 2 Cal.Rptr. 14, 17. However, People v. Ingle, supra.
In determining whether there is reasonable cause we must look at the facts and circumstances known to the officers at the time they made an arrest or search. People v. Murphy, 173 Cal.App.2d 367, 377, 343 P.2d 273; People v. Cantley, 163 Cal.App.2d 762, 765, 329 P.2d 993. The difficulty comes in evaluating the significance of these facts and circumstances. The trial court found there was reasonable cause for the arrest of the defendants and the search of their house. 'Unless it can be said that prudent men in the position of these officers knowing what they knew and sceing what they did would not have had reasonable cause to believe and to conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion that [defendants were] violating or had violated the law, the arrest should be held lawful.' People v. Ingle, supra.
In evaluating the situation with which the officers were faced it seems appropriate to quote the recent observation of this court in People v. Hollins, 173 Cal.App.2d 88, 92-93, 343 P.2d 174, 177: 'Our strong devotion to the cherished principle that the citizen shall not be subjected to unreasonable treatment at the hands of the agents of society must be tempered with some reasonable appreciation of the facts of life and of the great dangers and difficulties which beset the officer of the law in his effort to protect the community from the blighting scourge of the narcotic traffic.' In this connection we note the comment of the Supreme Court in the Ingle case, supra, 53 Cal.2d at page 414, 2 Cal.Rptr. at page 18: 'Police officers are guardians of the peace and security of the community; their problems are manifest and complex and they should not be held to accountability greater than that required of any other reasonable or prudent man under like circumstances.'
Also, it should be pointed out, People v. Vice, 147 Cal.App.2d 269, 273, 305 P.2d 270, 272. 'Thus,' said the court in People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645, at page 648, 290 P.2d 531, at page 533 'if the officer is entitled to make an arrest on the basis of information available to him before he searches, and as an incident to that arrest is entitled to made a reasonable search of the person arrested and the place where he is arrested, there is nothing unreasonable in his conduct if he makes the search before instead of after the arrest.'
Applying these principles to the facts and circumstances herein recited it seems apparent that the officers had reasonable cause to arrest the defendants. They had information that Baca was selling narcotics during the evening hours at his residence; they had observed various vehicles parked in front of the Baca residence during their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Dabney
-
People v. Fuller
...officers are justified in taking into account past conduct, character and reputation of the person suspected. (People v. Baca, 184 Cal.App.2d 693, 697--699, 7 Cal.Rptr. 864; People v. Holmes, 237 Cal.App.2d 795, 797, 47 Cal.Rptr. In the light of the facts and circumstances the officers had ......
-
People v. Sanchez
...prior to defendant's arrest the officer had reasonable cause to believe defendant had narcotics in his possession. People v. Baca, 184 Cal.App.2d 693, 7 Cal.Rptr. 864; People v. Murphy, 173 Cal.App.2d 367. 'Reasonable cause has been generally defined to be such a state of facts as would lea......
-
People v. Ambrose
...they are part of the same transaction they may occur prior thereto. (People v. Vice, 147 Cal.App.2d 269, 305 P.2d 270; People v. Baca, 184 Cal.2d 693, 7 Cal.Rptr. 864; People v. Simmon, 45 Cal.2d 645, 290 P.2d 531.) 'The fact that the search(es) preceded the arrest is of no consequence. (Pe......