People v. Blackmon

Decision Date23 September 1969
Docket NumberCr. 16155
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Earl Eugene BLACKMON, Defendant and Appellant.

Richard H. Levin, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and George J. Roth, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

FILES, Presiding Justice.

By information, defendant was charged with possession of marijuana (Health & Saf.Code, § 11530). He pleaded not guilty. A motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code, section 1538.5 was made and submitted upon the transcript of the preliminary examination and denied. It was then stipulated that the case would be tried before the court sitting without a jury, on the preliminary transcript and other evidence. The People's case in chief was submitted upon the transcript, which contained only the testimony of Officer Barcott. Defendant testified on his own behalf, and Officer Quinonez testified in rebuttal. The court found defendant guilty as charged, suspended proceedings and placed him on probation. This appeal is from the order granting probation, which is deemed a judgment for this purpose.

Officer Barcott testified in substance as follows:

At about 1:45 a.m. on May 18, 1968, he and his partner, Officer Quinonez, in uniform, were on patrol. They had been informed by some men 'in the area of Anaheim and Lewis' streets, who had been witnesses in a murder case, that 'some male Negro subjects from Los Angeles were mad at these people and they were going to come down that evening to harass them or whatever they could do.' As they passed that intersection in a patrol car the officers saw standing on the corner three male Negroes whom the officers did not recognize. While seated in the vehicle one of the officers asked the men where they were from. Two said they were from Los Angeles and one said Long Beach. The officers then stepped out of their vehicle.

As they walked towards the men Officer Barcott saw defendant drop a bundle of four handrolled cigarettes wrapped in a rubber band. He pointed this out to Officer Quinonez, who picked up the bundle. The cigarettes appeared to the officers to contain marijuana.

Officer Barcott testified that his purpose in stepping out of the vehicle was 'to talk to the subjects to see what their business was in the area.'

When on cross-examination he was asked why, the officer said 'To find out exactly where they lived in L.A. in case something should occur later on in the evening. While we had a description of these fellows, we would have their name, address, et cetera.'

It was stipulated that a criminalist would testify that the substance in the cigarettes was marijuana.

Defendant, testifying on his own behalf, denied that he had dropped the bundle. He said he had seen the bundle 10 or 15 minutes earlier in the possession of one of his companions.

Officer Quinonez testified that he picked up the cigarettes directly to the back and right of defendant, about 2 feet from where his feet were.

The sole issue argued on appeal is that the motion to suppress the marijuana should have been granted upon the ground that the officers invaded the constitutional rights of the defendant when they approached him on the street.

The applicable rule has been stated thus:

'It is well established that a police officer in the discharge of his duties may detain and question a person when the circumstances are such as would indicate to a reasonable man in a like position that such a course is necessary to the proper discharge of those duties.' (People v. One 1960 Cadillac Coupe (1964) 62 Cal.2d 92, 95--96, 41 Cal.Rptr. 290, 292, 396 P.2d 706, 708.)

In the case at bench the police had a reason to make inquiry, having received a report of threatened harassment of a witness in that locality. The men on the street corner fitted the only description the officers had, albeit a very general one.

Defendant and his companions were loitering in a public place late at night when the officers approached. They were not detained, except in the tenuous sense that most persons, through either respect or fear, probably would not walk away if two uniformed officers approached them on the street. The record does not support defendant's contention here that the police conduct was, as a matter of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Tony C., In re
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 24, 1978
    ...346, 349, 125 Cal.Rptr. 137; Batts v. Superior Court (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 435, 439, 100 Cal.Rptr. 181; People v. Blackmon (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 346, 349, 80 Cal.Rptr. 862.) The majority's test will be easy for the courts to employ and simple for the police to apply in the field. For example......
  • People v. Craig, Cr. 9364
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 1, 1978
    ...meeting that description. (See People v. Curtis (1969) 70 Cal.2d 347, 358, 74 Cal.Rptr. 713, 450 P.2d 33; People v. Blackmon (1969) 276 Cal.App.2d 346, 348, 80 Cal.Rptr. 862.) Defendants did not perfectly match the general description given, however, since the descriptions and appearances w......
  • People v. Higbee, Cr. 22987
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • March 14, 1974
    ...untruthful and as though he did not belong in a Cadillac. Furthermore, as pointed out by the court in People v. Blackmon, 276 Cal.App.2d 346, at page 349, 80 Cal.Rptr. 862, 864, in referring to One 1960 Cadillac Coupe, supra, 'the trial court found the conduct (of the police) was unreasonab......
  • People v. Martinez, Cr. 16746
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 6, 1970
    ...of those duties. (People v. One 1960 Cadillac Coupe, 62 Cal.2d 92, 95--96, 41 Cal.Rptr. 290, 396 P.2d 706; People v. Blackmon, 276 A.C.A. 428, 429--430, 80 Cal.Rptr. 862.) '(A)n officer of the law, employed to maintain the peace and to prevent crime, as well as to apprehend criminals after ......
  • 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