People v. Bouchard
| Decision Date | 13 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5927 |
| Citation | 161 Cal.App.2d 302,326 P.2d 646 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Rosario Joseph BOUCHARD, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., William B. McKesson, Dist. Atty., Jere J. Sullivan, Fred N. Whichello, Lewis Watnick, Robert Lederman, Deputy Dist. Attys. Los Angeles, for appellant.
No appearance for respondent.
On February 6, 1957, the District Attorney of Los Angeles County filed an information charging defendant with a violation of the Dangerous Weapons' Control Law (Penal Code, Section 12020) in that defendant had in his possession metal knuckles, or as commonly referred to, brass knuckles.
When the cause was called for plea in the superior court, defendant made a motion pursuant to Section 995 of the Penal Code on the ground 'That there was an illegal search and seizure, Your Honor; that there was no information on which to base probable cause * * *'. The motion was granted and the People appeal therefrom.
As to the evidentiary features of this case when it was presented to the committing magistrate, the record reflects that Officer R. E. Byron testified he was a Los Angeles city police officer assigned to the Robbery Division, and one of the arresting officers. That the arrest occurred on January 16, 1957, in Room 17 of a hotel in the city of Los Angeles. The officer testified that prior to going to the room he had received information that two roommates of defendant had been identified as participants in a robbery and had been arrested; that defendant was not present at the time of his roommates' arrest; and that there had been four active participants in the robbery. This information had been received from Sergeant Murphy who arrested the other two persons.
At approximately 10:20 a. m. on January 16, 1957, the officer went to the room to 'apprehend the third occupant of the room.' At the time he had neither a warrant of arrest nor a search warrant.
The officer knocked on the door. Defendant opened it. Officer Byron and another officer who accompanied him identified themselves and asked defendant his name, which he gave them. The officers 'informed him the reason we were there and asked the defendant if he had in his possession in the room or available to him a gun or any metal objects which might be used as a gun.' Defendant stated that he did not own a gun. The officers asked him if they could search the room. Defendant said, 'Yes.' As Officer Byron walked toward the bed, the defendant stated, 'If you look under the mattress there is a pair of brass knuckles.' The officer lifted the mattress and found a pair of brass knuckles which were marked Exhibit 1 for Identification, and later received into evidence. In the officer's expert opinion they are brass knuckles.
The officer asked defendant to whom the brass knuckles belonged. The latter stated he had found them in the room when 'they' moved into the room. Asked why he had kept them, defendant said, '* * * he didn't know, he thought he would just keep them.' He said that he didn't know why he had put them under the mattress. The evidence indicates that the officers were just inside the doorway and had searched the defendant for weapons before they asked him for permission to search the room.
Frank Estrada, also a police officer of the City of Los Angeles, attached to the Robbery Division, testified that in the course of his investigation of the case he had a conversation with defendant on January 17, 1957, at the central jail, and that defendant's statements were freely and voluntarily made. The officer asked him where he had obtained the brass knuckles, and the latter stated, '* * * that a girl by the name of Janet Beasley had given the knuckles to him the first part of December * * *.'
Defendant did not testify at the preliminary examination nor did he offer any evidence in his behalf.
The questions presented on this appeal are:
'1. Do the facts and circumstances herein establish reasonable cause for the search of defendant's apartment and the seizure of the brass knuckles? and
From the foregoing uncontradicted evidentiary narrative it is manifest that the evidence in question (brass knuckles) was voluntarily produced in response to a reasonable inquiry (People v. Michael, 45 Cal.2d 751, 754, 290 P.2d 852). Applicable and pertinent also to the case now engaging our attention, is the following language of our Supreme Court in People v. Burke, 47 Cal.2d 45, 49, 301 P.2d 241, 243:
In the instant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. La Peluso
...Cal.App.2d 780, 781-782, 25 Cal.Rptr. 539; People v. Hughes (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 107, 114-115, 6 Cal.Rptr. 643; People v. Bouchard (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 302, 305, 326 P.2d 646.) 'Whether in a particular case an apparent consent was in fact voluntarily given or was in submission to an expre......
-
People v. Toulson
...379, 303 P.2d 721; People v. Superior Court, 261 Cal.App.2d 687, 689, 68 Cal.Rptr. 281.) This was not a search. (People v. Bouchard, 161 Cal.App.2d 302, 305, 326 P.2d 646; People v. West, 144 Cal.App.2d 214, 219, 300 P.2d 729.) Probable cause to arrest defendant existed prior to the officer......
-
Hunter v. District Court In and For Twentieth Judicial Dist.
...283(5, 6), 19 Cal.Rptr. 1, 368 P.2d 529; People v. Malki (1960) 181 Cal.App.2d 118, 121(1), 5 Cal.Rptr. 207; People v. Bouchard (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 302, 306(8), 326 P.2d 646; People v. Cornette (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 724, 728(1), 322 P.2d 1001, and cases there cited.) The magistrate is not......
-
State v. Moore
...and the motion to suppress was properly denied.' Haerr v. United States, 240 F.2d 533 (5th Cir., 1957) and People v. Bouchard, 161 Cal.App.2d 302, 326 P.2d 646 (1958) are cited by defense counsel in support of his contention '* * * When O'Neal 'frisked' Moore and Willin he 'searched' them w......