People v. Baird, Cr. 8631

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtCHRISTIAN; RATTIGAN
Citation95 Cal.Rptr. 700,18 Cal.App.3d 450
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. James A. BAIRD and Linn A. Drummond, Defendants and Respondents.
Decision Date25 June 1971
Docket NumberCr. 8631

Page 700

95 Cal.Rptr. 700
18 Cal.App.3d 450
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
James A. BAIRD and Linn A. Drummond, Defendants and Respondents.
Cr. 8631.
Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.
June 25, 1971.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing July 23, 1971.
Hearing Denied Aug. 18, 1971.

[18 Cal.App.3d 451] Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of California, Derald E. Granberg, Eric Collins, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for appellant.

Mintz, Giller, Himmelman & Mintz, by James Giller, Oakland, for respondent James A. Baird.

Nason & Goldfarb, by Milton Nason, Berkeley, for respondent Linn A. Drummond.

[18 Cal.App.3d 452] CHRISTIAN, Associate Justice.

The People appeal from an order dismissing an information which charged respondents Baird and Drummond with possession of a fire bomb (Pen.Code, § 452,

Page 701

subd. (b)). Dismissal, under Penal Code, section 1385, followed the granting of a motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code, section 1538.5. We reverse the order of dismissal.

During the closing days of June, 1968, the portion of Berkeley adjacent to the campus of the University of California was the scene of a serious riot or civil disturbance. Events culminated on June 30, with the imposition of a curfew effective 7 p.m. Fire bombs had been thrown in the affected area during the previous evening; large numbers of police officers were employed in trying to restore order and protect lives and property. Having participated in these unhappy events for three days, Sergeant Glenn and other officers under his direction responded at about 9:30 p.m. to a call to assist a small unit of traffic police who were being attacked by a rock-throwing crowd of about 50 persons. The traffic officers had been posted at a point near the intersection of Telegraph Avenue and Derby Street with directions to block Telegraph Avenue with a line of flares and divert traffic away from the main area of disturbance. As Sergeant Glenn's unit approached, the crowd dispersed.

In the immediate vicinity Sergeant Glenn then saw a man run in a crouched position from a parked car toward Willard Junior High School, on Telegraph Avenue and Stuart Street; a few seconds later, the man ran back to the car. After a few more seconds, Sergeant Glenn again saw a man run from the parked car to the school and back again. He could not see whether anything was being carried by the man (or men). Sergeant Glenn instructed his squad to investigate. As the officers entered the police vehicle, the suspect vehicle made a U-turn across two double lines and proceeded away at somewhat over 40 miles per hour in a 25-mile-per-hour zone. Officer Clifton (who was driving the police vehicle in pursuit) turned on his red light, but the suspect vehicle did not stop. He then used his siren, and the vehicle pulled over and stopped.

Officer Clifton ordered the driver (respondent Baird) out of the car and asked for identification. Sergeant Glenn, Officer Shaffer and Officer Charles approached the passenger side and ordered respondent Drummond out of the vehicle; Sergeant Glenn escorted Drummond to the rear of the vehicle. Officer Shaffer had not been told in detail what Sergeant Glenn had seen; he had been told only that Glenn had observed 'some monkey business.' Shaffer testified that he looked into the vehicle and saw a large bottle labeled 'Apple Juice' on the front seat. There was black [18 Cal.App.3d 453] tape on the bottle, which was full of a light pink liquid. Shaffer reached into the car, took the bottle, noticed a small cylinder taped on the side, and placed the bottle on the top of the car. He thought the bottle might contain gasoline, but he 'didn't actually know'; he did not think the liquid was apple juice.

Shaffer testified that he also saw, in the back seat, a satchel with bottles protruding from it. These were long and slim Riesling wine bottles with corks 'taped in over the top.' He entered the vehicle and removed one bottle; as he did so, the bottle slipped from his hand and broke on the ground. Shaffer immediately smelled the odor of gasoline.

Following the discovery of the gasoline, Drummond and Baird were searched. Two carbon dioxide cylinders wrapped in green tape and a small metal circular box containing coiled string-type material were seized from Baird; a metallic cylinder was also taken from Drummond.

Later analysis showed that the bottles were indeed fire bombs, ready armed for use. The metal cylinder taped to the side of each was found to contain black powder with a combustible fuse inserted at the top. A criminalist testified at the preliminary hearing that an experimental explosion of an identical device produced a violently hot fire ball, 25 to 50 feet in diameter, and scattered fragments of glass as far as 70 feet from the explosion.

Page 702

Baird and Drummond testified, in support of their motion to suppress evidence, that neither the apple juice bottle bomb in the front nor the other two bombs in the back seat were in plain sight. The defense also presented the testimony of an expert witness that it would be difficult, at night, to distinguish apple juice from gasoline.

The trial court in granting the motion to suppress, made the finding that the apple juice bottle was not visible from the outside of the car, and that even if it was, 'there still wasn't reasonable and probable cause to go any further, (as) the bottle looked merely like a bottle of apple juice.' Although there was no evidence explaining how a large jug could be inserted under the front seat of the suspects' car, as they testified, the Attorney General concedes that we are bound by the court's determination that the bombs were not in plain sight but were discovered as a result of a search.

As the search in question was made without a search warrant, the burden was on the prosecution to establish its lawfulness. (Tompkins v. Superior Court (1963) 59 Cal.2d 65, 67, 27 Cal.Rptr. 889, 378 P.2d 113; Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 272, 294 P.2d 23.) The issue, then, is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • People v. Suennen, Cr. 20129
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 1980
    ...91 S.Ct. 1031, 1037, 28 L.Ed.2d 306; People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 748, 117 Cal.Rptr. 393, 528 P.2d 1; People v. Baird (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 450, 454, 95 Cal.Rptr. 700.) Foley was also entitled[114 Cal.App.3d 200] to seize and remove the "hard objects" two flashlights and tw......
  • People v. Superior Court for Alameda County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 1977
    ...6 Cal.App.3d 379, 381-383, 85 Cal.Rptr. 803), and because there was a riot or possible conspiracy occurring (see People v. Baird (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 450, 454-455, 95 Cal.Rptr. 700; and note People v. Sirhan (1972)7 Cal.3d 710, 735-741, 102 Cal.Rptr. 385, 497 P.2d The record clearly disclos......
  • People v. Powell, Cr. 22227
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 1974
    ...the suspected contraband consists of weapons. (People v. Flores (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 23, 28, 99 Cal.Rptr. 858; People v. Baird (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 450, 454, 95 Cal.Rptr. 700; People v. Wigginton (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 321, 326, 62 Cal.Rptr. We reject the contention that the initial search a......
  • People v. Ammons, Cr. 19103
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 4, 1980
    ...(People v. Roberts, 47 Cal.2d 374, 377, 303 P.2d 721; People v. Bradford, 28 Cal.App.3d 695, 703, 104 Cal.Rptr. 852; People v. Baird, 18 Cal.App.3d 450, 454, 95 Cal.Rptr. 700; see also United States v. Goldenstein (8th Cir. 1972) 456 F.2d 1006; Roberts, The Emergency Doctrine, Civil Search ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • People v. Suennen, Cr. 20129
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 1980
    ...91 S.Ct. 1031, 1037, 28 L.Ed.2d 306; People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, 748, 117 Cal.Rptr. 393, 528 P.2d 1; People v. Baird (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 450, 454, 95 Cal.Rptr. 700.) Foley was also entitled[114 Cal.App.3d 200] to seize and remove the "hard objects" two flashlights and tw......
  • People v. Superior Court for Alameda County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 31, 1977
    ...6 Cal.App.3d 379, 381-383, 85 Cal.Rptr. 803), and because there was a riot or possible conspiracy occurring (see People v. Baird (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 450, 454-455, 95 Cal.Rptr. 700; and note People v. Sirhan (1972)7 Cal.3d 710, 735-741, 102 Cal.Rptr. 385, 497 P.2d The record clearly disclos......
  • People v. Powell, Cr. 22227
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 1974
    ...the suspected contraband consists of weapons. (People v. Flores (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 23, 28, 99 Cal.Rptr. 858; People v. Baird (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 450, 454, 95 Cal.Rptr. 700; People v. Wigginton (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 321, 326, 62 Cal.Rptr. We reject the contention that the initial search a......
  • People v. Ammons, Cr. 19103
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 4, 1980
    ...(People v. Roberts, 47 Cal.2d 374, 377, 303 P.2d 721; People v. Bradford, 28 Cal.App.3d 695, 703, 104 Cal.Rptr. 852; People v. Baird, 18 Cal.App.3d 450, 454, 95 Cal.Rptr. 700; see also United States v. Goldenstein (8th Cir. 1972) 456 F.2d 1006; Roberts, The Emergency Doctrine, Civil Search ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT