People v. Boyles

Decision Date29 November 1955
Docket NumberCr. 5766
Citation45 Cal.2d 652,290 P.2d 535
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Maxine Ann BOYLES, Defendant and Respondent. . In Bank

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., S. Ernest Roll, Dist. Atty., Jere J. Sullivan and Lewis Watnick, Deputy Dist. Attys., Los Angeles, for appellant.

Alan Ross, Los Angeles, for respondent.

A. L. Wirin and Fred Okrand, Los Angeles, as amici curiae on behalf of respondent

TRAYNOR, Justice.

By information defendant was charged with one count of possessing heroin in violation of Health and Safety Code, § 11500, a felony. Her motion to set the information aside (see Penal Code, § 995) was granted on the ground that all of the evidence of the crime other than admissions was obtained by an illegal search of her person in violation of her constitutional rights. The People appeal.

At about 10:00 a. m. on May 2, 1955 three officers of the Los Angeles police department obtained the key to a hotel room from the manager of the hotel and entered the room waited. About 11:00 a. m. defendant knocked on the door or made some signal. The officers opened the door and one of them grabbed defendant's hands and found two bindles of heroin in her right hand. One of the officers testified that he asked defendant 'if she had any more stuff. She said no. That is all there was. I asked her how much was there and she said a gram and a half. I asked her where she got it and she said she scored it from a friend down on Second Street. I asked her what it cost her. She said $30.' He also testified that he believed a felony was being committed at the time of the arrest. The prosecuting attorney then asked what reason he had for his belief, and defendant objected on the ground that the answer would be hearsay and a conclusion of the witness. The prosecuting attorney stated that he had a right to show that the arrest was legal and that the search was incident to the arrest, but the court indicated that since the officer had made a positive statement as to his belief, any question as to its validity should come from cross-examination. On cross-examination the officer was asked, 'You personally did not witness any activity of this defendant with regard to narcotics before the date of this arrest, did you?' He answered, 'I did not.' No further questions with respect to the basis of his belief were asked. It does not appear from the record who was the regular occupant of the hotel room where the officers waited. They did not have a search warrant or a warrant for defendant's arrest.

It should be noted at the outset that whether or not the officers were trespassers in the room where they waited for defendant is immaterial in this case. It does not appear that the room was searched, and even if it was, nothing that may have been found in the room was offered or introduced in evidence. It is apparent that the officers were waiting and watching for someone to enter the room. Since they had the cooperation of the manager of the hotel, however, any such person could have been apprehended just as well from some other vantage point nearby without committing any trespass, and thus their ability to arrest and search defendant was not dependent on their presence in the room. Under these circumstances, the trespass, if any, was entirely unrelated and collateral to the securing of the evidence to which defendant objects, and it could not therefore render that evidence inadmissible. Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 134-135, 62 S.Ct. 993, 86 L.Ed. 1322; see also, United States v. Mitchell, 322 U.S. 65, 70-71, 64 S.Ct. 896, 88 L.Ed. 1140; McQuire v. United States, 273 U.S. 95, 99-100, 47 S.Ct. 259, 71 L.Ed. 556; United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 563, 47 S.Ct. 746, 71 L.Ed. 1202.

The Attorney General contends that the search in this case was incidental to a lawful arrest and was therefore reasonable. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that the search preceded the arrest and was not incidental thereto and that in any event the arrest was unlawful.

In People v. Brown, Cal., 290 P.2d 528, we held that a search incident to an arrest could not be justified in the absence of 'reasonable cause' under Penal Cdde, § 836 merely because it revealed that defendant was in fact guilty of a felony. We also held in that case that an arrest could not be justified under subdivision 1 of section 836 when there was no evidence of anything apparent to the officer's senses before the arrest and search that defendant was committing or attempting to commit a public offense in his presence. Accordingly, since there was no such evidence in this case, the search may be justified only if it was incidental to a lawful arrest under subdivision 3 of section 836. If, however, an arrest under that subdivision was lawful, the search incident thereto would not be unlawful merely because it preceded rather than followed the arrest. people v. Simon, Cal., 290 P.2d 531.

Section 836, subd. 3, provides that an officer may make an arrest without a warrant 'When a felony has in face been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.'

Defendant contends that to justify a search incident to an arrest under this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
182 cases
  • People v. Shelton
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 30 d4 Janeiro d4 1964
    ...Western Avenue apartment in the company of Miss Baul, an admitted user of narcotics allegedly supplied by defendant Shelton. (People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 656(9, 8b), 290 P.2d It is not unreasonable for officers to seek interviews with suspects or witnesses or to call upon them at their......
  • People v. Lee
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 5 d2 Junho d2 1973
    ...that hearsay is competent for the purpose of establishing reasonable and probable cause for search and seizure. (People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 656, 290 P.2d 535; People v. Hale, 262 Cal.App.2d 780, 789, 69 Cal.Rptr. 28; People v. King, 140 Cal.App.2d 1, 4-6, 294 P.2d 972.) Woods was a re......
  • People v. Gilbert
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • 15 d3 Dezembro d3 1965
    ...374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L.Ed.2d 726; Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145, 67 S.Ct. 1098, 91 L.Ed. 1399; People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 290 P.2d 535), 6 or is justified by a pressing emergency (People v. Roberts, 47 Cal.2d 374, 377-378, 303 P.2d 721; see McDonald v. United States,......
  • People v. Estrada
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 3 d1 Maio d1 1965
    ...150 Cal.App.2d 197, 201, 309 P.2d 856) 9 as well as information from other informants known by them to be reliable. (People v. Boyles (1955) 45 Cal.2d 652, 656, 290 P.2d 535; Willson v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 291, 294-295, 294 P.2d 36; People v. Swayze, supra; People v. Cedeno, sup......
  • 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