People v. Bock Leung Chew, Cr. 3178

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Citation298 P.2d 118,142 Cal.App.2d 400
Decision Date19 June 1956
Docket NumberCr. 3178
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California. Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOCK LEUNG CHEW, Defendant and Respondent.

Page 118

298 P.2d 118
142 Cal.App.2d 400
The PEOPLE of the State of California. Plaintiff and Appellant,
BOCK LEUNG CHEW, Defendant and Respondent.
Cr. 3178.
District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.
June 19, 1956.
Rehearing Denied July 3, 1956.
Hearing Denied July 18, 1956.

[142 Cal.App.2d 401] Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Victor Griffith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Benjamin M. Davis, San Francisco, for respondent.

DOOLING, Justice.

Defendant was charged with possessing a preparation of yen shee in violation of Health and Safety Code, § 11500. His motion to set the information aside, Pen.Code, § 995, was granted on the ground that all of

Page 119

the evidence against him was obtained by an illegal search and seizure in violation of his constitutional rights. The People appeal.

At the preliminary hearing Police Officer McKinley testified that on the evening of April 5, 1955, at about 9:15 p. m. he and another police officer happened to be in an apartment building located at 823 Grant Avenue. They had never been in the building before and there was nothing suspicious about the place. On their way to another apartment in this building they walked by the door of Apartment 5. One of the officers testified, 'We walked by the door and smelled--and it smelled of opium.'

The officers were admitted to the apartment by respondent's wife who was the only person present therein at the time. Respondent's wife did not speak English and did not understand the officers when they talked to her.

Upon entering a room of the apartment the officers became aware of a very strong smell of opium. They searched the premisses and under the kitchen cupboard found what later was identified as yen shee in a coffee can. A chemist for the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement testified that yen shee is [142 Cal.App.2d 402] the residue from smoking opium. Between 9:15 and 11:00 p. m. they saw no one enter or leave the premises and during that perior of time they searched the apartment. At 11 p. m. the officers called an interpreter so that they could talk with respondent's wife.

The officers had neither a search warrant nor a warrant for anyone's arrest in Apartment 5.

Respondent's name and identification was obtained from telephone bills found in his apartment. He was arrested the following day about 4:30 p. m. at the Palace Hotel where he worked in the pantry. At that time respondent told the arresting officers that he found the yen shee outside his window when he moved into the apartment. He took it into his apartment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Sterling, Application of, Cr. 10320
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 9, 1965
    ...crime which is apparent to the officer's senses. (People v. Burgess, 170 Cal.App.2d 36, 41, 338 P.2d 524; People v. Bock Leung Chew, 142 Cal.App.2d 400, 402-403, 298 P.2d 118.) In the present case as a basis for reasonable cause we have (1) the anonymous phone call that professional gamblin......
  • People v. Von Latta, Cr. 2682
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 26, 1968 a place where it is subject to his control and dominion even though he is not present at that place. (People v. Bock Leung Chew, 142 Cal.App.2d 400, 403, 298 P.2d 118; People v. Crews, 110 Cal.App.2d 218, 221, 242 P.2d In the case at bench defendant was at his residence in Garden Grove o......
  • People v. Marshall, Cr. 11947
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 16, 1968
    ...would have been insufficient to justify an entry, search or arrest.' Chong Wing Louie relied upon People v. Bock Leung Chew (1956) 142 Cal.App.2d 400, 402, 298 P.2d 118, 119, in which the [69 Cal.2d 64] court grappled forthrightly with our problem and reached this conclusion: 'The basic que......
  • State v. Elkins
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • December 28, 1966
    ...873, 875, (D.C.A. 3 1966); People v. Carswell, 149 Cal.App.2d 395, 308 P.2d 852, 855 (D.C.A. 1, 1957); People v. Bock Leung Chew, 142 Cal.App.2d 400, 402, 298 P.2d 118 (D.C.A. 1, 1956); State v. Scrotsky, 39 N.J. 410, 189 A.2d 23 The failure of the trial court to suppress the pills as evide......
  • 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