People v. Botos, Cr. 5087

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Citation27 Cal.App.3d 774,104 Cal.Rptr. 193
Docket NumberCr. 5087
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sharon Glea BOTOS, Defendant and Appellant.
Decision Date15 September 1972

Page 193

104 Cal.Rptr. 193
27 Cal.App.3d 774
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Sharon Glea BOTOS, Defendant and Appellant.
Cr. 5087.
Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.
Sept. 15, 1972.

Page 194

[27 Cal.App.3d 777] James M. Gattey, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Elaine A. Alexander and Jay M. Bloom, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.


GERALD BROWN, Presiding Justice.

Defendant Sharon Glea Botos appeals her court-tried conviction of transporting marijuana (Health & Saf. Code § 11531) and possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code § 11530.5).

Kent Allan Wenger came to San Diego to buy marijuana in July 1971; he stayed at Botos' home for three or four days, and on July 8 bought marijuana from a person to whom Botos had introduced him on an earlier trip. Wenger packed the marijuana in his two suitcases, putting six plastic wrapped kilo bricks in each. During the late evening of July 8 Botos drove Wenger to the San Diego Airport. Wenger bought a plane ticket to Indiana, and the bags were tagged as his and loaded into the plane's baggage compartment.

The federal government's airplane hijack detection system contains a hijacker profile made up of statistical information describing specific characteristics of likely hijackers. Because Wenger met the hijacker profile, an airline ticket agent stopped him at Gate 8 before boarding his flight. The agent asked Wenger for identification, and when Wenger did not satisfy this request, the agent called Deputy U.S. Marshal Johnson, who was assigned to the anti-air piracy detail at the airport. Johnson asked Wenger to come with him to an unoccupied gate. Botos, who had gone with Wenger to the boarding gate, walked with Wenger and Johnson to Gate 6. Johnson asked Wenger for identification, and Wenger gave him a social security card and a draft classification card. Unsatisfied, Johnson asked for further identification, and Wenger said he had none, explaining he lost his wallet two months earlier. Johnson asked permission to look through Wenger's luggage for weapons,

Page 195

explosives, or identification. Wenger consented. When the bags were brought to the counter, Wenger said he did [27 Cal.App.3d 778] not have the key to open them, and asked Botos if she had it. She answered he had it. Johnson saw a large bulge in Wenger's pocket, and asked him what it was. Wenger replied it was a roach holder, and removed it from his pocket. Three keys were attached to it. Johnson asked if one of the keys would open the luggage, and Wenger replied it would. Wenger had become increasingly nervous during these proceedings and, when Johnson asked him to open the bags, took several tries to fit the key in the lock. Finally, he unlocked and, at Johnson's request, opened a suitcase. Johnson saw the marijuana, and arrested both Wenger and Botos.

During the Grand Jury proceeding, Johnson refused to answer questions concerning the secret air hijacker profile. Botos maintains since the profile has not been revealed the detention is not justified and her motion before trial to suppress the marijuana (Pen.Code § 1538.5) was erroneously denied.

The United States Supreme Court has summarized the Fourth Amendment protection afforded the individual against interrogatory police tactics, saying:

'. . . wherever an individual may harbor a reasonable 'expectation of privacy', * * * he is entitled to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Of course, the specific content and incidents of this right must be shaped by the context in which it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • People v. Lee, Cr. 10823
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 5 Junio 1973
    ...den. 406 U.S. 947, 92 S.Ct. 2050, 32 L.Ed.2d 334; United States v. Lopez, supra, 328 F.Supp. 1077, 1083-1084, 1101; People v. Botos, 27 Cal.App.3d 774, 778-779, 104 Cal.Rptr. 193.) These cases recognize that an individual's expectation of privacy in an airline terminal is not the same as th......
  • People v. Bleile, Cr. 22891
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 29 Junio 1973
    ...bag. This concession is in accord with case law upholding the search of carry-on luggage of boarding passengers. (People v. Botos, 27 Cal.App.3d 774, 779, 104 Cal.Rptr. 193; People v. DeStrulle, 28 Cal.App.3d 477, 482, 104 Cal.Rptr. 639; United States v. Slocum, 464 F.2d 1180, 1183 (3d Cir.......
  • People v. Hamilton
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 31 Mayo 1985
    ...was probably in the apartment. "Whether the search was made following a valid consent is a question of fact." (People v. Botos (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 774, 779, 104 Cal.Rptr. 193.) We review the findings of the trial court to see if substantial evidence supports its conclusions. (People v. Sup......
  • State v. Adams
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 3 Diciembre 1973
    ...cert. den. 405 U.S. 995, 92 S.Ct. 1270, 31 L.Ed.2d 463; United States v. Slocum, 464 F.2d 1180 (3 Cir. 1972); see also People v. Botos, 27 Cal.App.3d 774, 104 Cal.Rptr. 193 (Ct.App.1972), and People v. De Strulle, 28 Cal.App.3d 477, 104 Cal.Rptr. 639 (Ct.App.1972) (in which the court also f......
  • 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