People v. Boyd
| Decision Date | 25 July 1958 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3483 |
| Citation | 162 Cal.App.2d 332,327 P.2d 913 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James BOYD, Defendant and Appellant. |
Joseph H. Radensky, Lynwood, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Peter T. Kennedy, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
After a trial before the court without a jury, defendant was convicted of the illegal possession of narcotics. He admitted a prior conviction for the same offense. On this appeal his sole contention is that his arrest and search were illegal because made without warrants and without reasonable and probable cause.
A federal narcotics agent, Prizborowski by name, testified that on May 14, 1957, he received information from an informant that defendant, whom the informant described, was engaged in the narcotics traffic. The informant stated that defendant was a runner for a notorious narcotic dealer who was operating in the Fillmore District and who was known to the agent. The informant also stated that on several occations he had purchased narcotics from the defendant, and that both the informant and defendant had used narcotics in the defendant's place of abode. The address and apartment number of defendant's residence were given. The agent also testified that the informant had previously given him information on four or five occasions and that such information had proved to be reliable. In each case, as a result of such information, arrests and convictions were secured. The defendant did not request the name of this informant.
The agent testified that several hours after receiving this information he and two other agents visited defendant's apartment. Prizborowski knocked on the door. The defendant opened it just far enough to peek out. The officers identified themselves and and defendant then 'opened the door wider and admitted us into the premises.' In response to a question from the officers the defendant stated that his name was 'James Boyd.' As Prizborowski was talking to defendant he noticed what appeared to be old hypodermic needle marks on the hands and forearms of defendant. The defendant was then placed under arrest and the premises searched. In the pocket of a raincoat belonging to defendant two cellophane bags containing heroin were found. One of the officers remarked that it looked as if each bag had contained an ounce of heroin. Defendant then stated: The agent admitted that he had neither a warrant of arrest nor a search warrant.
Defendant testified that the officers demanded admittance to the apartment and that he did not consent to the entry. He admitted that the raincoat in which the heroin was found belonged to him, and that no one else ever wore it, but denied all knowledge of the narcotics or how they got into the pocket of his coat. He admitted talking to the officers about the cellophane bags, but stated that he did not tell them that he had spilled a spoon of heroin in the bags, but simply told the officers that someone must have done so. Defendant admitted that there were old hypodermic marks on his arms.
Defense counsel then stated to the court that he was convinced that this evidence, if admissible, was undoubtedly sufficient to find the defendant guilty, but that he wanted to raise the question that this evidence was inadmissible because secured by means of an illegal arrest and search. His theory is that the officers, under these facts, did not have reasonable or probable cause to believe that a felony had been committed by defendant. In support of this contention defendant challenges the correctness of the rule relied upon in support of the judgment that police officers may make an arrest and conduct a search solely on the basis of information received from a reliable informant, and that such an arrest and search are justified if the trial court believes that the officer reasonably relied on the information thus given to him.
There are many cases holding that an arrest and search...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Swayze
...v. Cedeno, supra, 218 A.C.A. p. 235, 32 Cal.Rptr. p. 250; People v. Roland, 183 Cal.App.2d 780, 784, 6 Cal.Rptr. 895; People v. Boyd, 162 Cal.App.2d 332, 334, 327 P.2d 913.) To justify reliance on the information received the informer must be known to the officer to be reliable, and must be......
-
People v. Melchor
...(People v. Cedeno, supra, p. 219, 32 Cal.Rptr. 246; People v. Roland, 183 Cal.App.2d 780, 784, 6 Cal.Rptr. 895; People v. Boyd, 162 Cal.App.2d 332, 334, 327 P.2d 913.) 'Whether or not a police officer acts upon reasonable cause, where he relies upon information given by an informer, depends......
-
People v. Scott
...holding that an arrest and search may be made solely on the basis of information received from a reliable informer. See People v. Boyd, 162 Cal.App.2d 332, 327 P.2d 913. Thus, it is not necessary that the felony be committed in the presence of the arresting officer. People v. White, 159 Cal......
-
People v. Jackson, Cr. 17930
...than the ultimate validity of the information. (See People v. Weathers, 162 Cal.App.2d 545, 546--547, 328 P.2d 222; People v. Boyd, 162 Cal.App.2d 332, 334, 327 P.2d 913; People v. Dean, 151 Cal.App.2d 162, 167, 311 P.2d 85.) Certainly an officer is as justified in relying upon the apparent......