People v. Brown, Cr. 5686

Citation305 P.2d 126,147 Cal.App.2d 352
Decision Date31 December 1956
Docket NumberCr. 5686
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Respondent, v. Inez BROWN, Appellant.

Minsky & Garber, Albert C. Garber, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Bonnie Lee Hansen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

WHITE, Presiding Justice.

In an information filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County, defendant was charged with a violation of Section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, a felony, in that she unlawfully had in her possession heroin, and was also charged with a prior misdemeanor conviction for narcotics addiction in violation of Section 11721 of the aforesaid code, which prior conviction was subsequently admitted. To the offense charged in the information defendant pleaded not guilty. Trial by jury was duly waived and by stipulation the People's case in chief was presented on the transcript of testimony adduced at the preliminary examination. Both parties reserved the right to introduce additional testimony. At the trial, when the judge announced he had read and considered the testimony contained in the transcript of the preliminary examination, and following argument by counsel, both parties rested after defendant's objection to all evidence presented by the prosecution was overruled. Defendant was adjudged guilty and sentenced to the California Institution for Women for the term prescribed by law.

This appeal is from the judgment of conviction and from 'the order * * * denying defendant's motion for a new trial'. Since the record reveals that no motion for a new trial was made, the attempted appeal therefrom must be dismissed.

The following will serve as a fair epitome of the factual background surrounding this prosecution. On January 15, 1956, at about 1:35 a. m., Officer Salagi was in an alley in the rear of the Chatterbox Hotel at 441 Stanford Street in the City of Los Angeles. He testified that, 'I know that narcotics are sold in that area--quite a bit of narcotics sold in that area'; that he and his partner were in that area investigating vice conditions. That defendant and another woman walked into the alley and appeared to be conversing. The officer was about fifty or sixty feet from the two women and the alley was very well lighted at this point. The defendant was observed placing something in the other woman's hand, when the officer heard what sounded like a coin hit the pavement. The defendant bent over, picked up the object, and placed it in the lady's hand. The other lady was observed removing something from her purse and placing it in the defendant's hand. The latter then placed her hand in the area of her breast. For the purpose of establishing probable cause for making the arrest, the officer was permitted to testify that this incident 'indicated to me that there was a transfer of narcotics taking place.' The other woman left the area first and then defendant followed her out of the alley. Officer Salagi then left the area and found the defendant at the corner of 5th and Stanford about four minutes later. The defendant was there placed under arrest.

The officer removed a bindle from the left side of a jumper bag where the defendant was observed to have placed an object after the transaction referred to above. The power contained in the bindle was identified as heroin. The defendant stated to the arresting officer that she had bought the heroin from one Fay Harris and paid $4 for it. The officer further testified that he was approximately 50 or 60 feet away from the two women at the time he observed them in conversation. He could not hear what they were saying. With regard to anything being transferred by one of the women to the other the officer testified:

'Q. With reference to this alleyway here, you actually didn't see anything transferred from one person to the other, did you?

'A. No, sir, just the way their hands were coming together and the coin dropping to the pavement and the defendant picking the coin up.'

Appellant's sole ground for reversal of the judgment is that the trial court committed prejudicial and reversible error in overruling her objection to the introduction into evidence of the bindle of heroin and in refusing to suppress such evidence on the ground that the same was obtained as the result of an illegal arrest and consequent unlawful search and seizure. Appellant earnestly insists that the facts hereinbefore narrated did not furnish reasonable or probable cause for her arrest and that therefore, the aforesaid narcotic was erroneously received in evidence because it was the product of the claimed unlawful trespass upon appellant's constitutional rights.

In United States v. Snyder, D.C., 278 F. 650, 658, reasonable or probable cause is defined as 'a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man in his belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.' See also Hernandez v. United States, 9 Cir., 17 F.2d 373; People v. Kilvington, 104 Cal. 86, 91, 37 P. 799; Cook v. Singer Sewing Machine Co., 138 Cal.App. 418, 422, 32 P.2d 430; People v. Moore, 141 Cal.App.2d 87, 89, 299 P.2d 691.

Penal Code, Section 836(2) authorizes an officer to make an arrest without a warrant, 'When a person arrested has committed a felony * * *', or under subdivision (3) 'When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it', or under subdivision (5) 'At night, when there is reasonable cause to believe that [the person arrested] has committed a felony.'

Therefore, the primary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • People v. Maltz
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 1971
    ...Court, 2 Cal.3d 659, 87 Cal.Rptr. 202, 470 P.2d 11. The People rely upon the general principles stated above and People v. Brown, 147 Cal.App.2d 352, 305 P.2d 126. Over and over again the cases instruct that the question of reasonable cause is to be determined by reference to the particular......
  • People v. Escollias
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 15, 1968
    ...operandi in connection with the sale of contraband, or even that this area was one of high narcotics trafficking. (People v. Brown, 147 Cal.App.2d 352, 356, 305 P.2d 126.) The officers did not observe any act by defendant or the others in or near the car upon which to justify any suspicion ......
  • Cunha v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1970
    ...P.2d 10.) People v. Towner, 259 Cal.App.2d 682, 66 Cal.Rptr. 559; People v. Garcia, 171 Cal.App.2d 757, 341 P.2d 351; People v. Brown, 147 Cal.App.2d 352, 305 P.2d 126, cited by the Attorney General, involved circumstances more suspicious than those involved In the present case, Officer McC......
  • People v. Bernal
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 27, 1959
    ...be before or after an arrest and the weight of the evidence to establish knowledge is a factual question for the jury. People v. Brown, 147 Cal.App.2d 352, 305 P.2d 126; People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 655, 290 P.2d 535; People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 755, 762, 290 P.2d 855; People v. Bean, 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Search and seizure
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • March 30, 2022
    ...the facts presented to the officer at the time he is required to act. People v. Fritz (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 7; People v. Brown (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 352; People v. Hupp (1943) 61 Cal.App.2d 447. If the “facts presented to the officer” do not include information that makes an offense a felon......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Appendices
    • March 30, 2022
    ...§5:53.4 People v. Broughton (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 307, §6:24 People v. Brown (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 602, §3:44.5 People v. Brown (1956) 147 Cal.App.2d 352, §7:48 People v. Brown (1985) 40 Cal.3d 512, §9:33.1 People v. Brown (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 596, §2:84.1 People v. Brown (1993) 6 Cal.4th ......

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