People v. Cannon

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: People v. Cannon, 148 Cal.App.2d 163, 306 P.2d 589 (Cal. App. 1957)
• Decision Date: 30 January 1957
• Docket Number: Cr. 3239
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Quincy CANNON, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 589

306 P.2d 589

148 Cal.App.2d 163

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Quincy CANNON, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 3239.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Jan. 30, 1957.

Alfred J. Hennessy, Manton, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, together with his codefendant Frank G. Winborn, was found guilty by a jury of violation of section 11557 of the Health and Safety Code, maintenance of place for disposal of narcotics, after having admitted two prior convictions of which one was of possession of narcotics, § 11500 of said Code. Under section 11712 of said Code he was sentenced to San Quentin. He appeals from the judgment of conviction, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support it, considering also that part of the evidence was allegedly inadmissible because obtained as the result of an allegedly illegal entry and search without a warrant. We have found the appeal without merit.

As a foundation for the admittance of evidence obtained by the entry and search on August 10, 1955 of the apartment rented by appellant, Inspector Chasten of the State Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement testified outside the presence of the jury in substance as follows: He had information that the two defendants had rented an apartment at 1411 A Golden Gate Avenue under an assumed name and maintained it for the selling of narcotics, and that addicts were entering the place day and night mainly through the back door. He knew of appellant's prior narcotics conviction and had before arrested him in relation to a narcotics violation. He knew of defendant Winborn's conviction as an addict and had observed symptoms of addiction on him. Beginning August 5, 1955 he placed the premises under observation at different times. He saw Winborn and also other known addicts enter the apartment through the back door and saw appellant enter the front entrance from which the apartment is reached. However, he intended to make at least two purchases of narcotics before making an arrest. On the morning of August 10, 1955, he had a confidential operator of the State Bureau make two purchases of one bindle each. The operator informed him that when he visited the apartment for that purpose both defendants were there. With respect to these purchases the witness had before testified, in the presence of the jury, that the operator had been searched and all objects except a five dollar bill of which the number was recorded had been removed from him. Thereafter, the witness and another inspector accompanied the operator to the vicinity of the apartment, rented by appellant, saw him climb the back stairs to the apartment and enter its rear doorway at approximately 9:30 a. m. After a few minutes he returned and gave the inspector a small paper wrapped package, a bindle. When he was searched again the money he had been given was not on him. The whole procedure was repeated an hour later resulting again in the delivery of a bindle and the absence of the five dollar bill. Thereafter about noon the arrests and search were made without a warrant, the inspectors not forcing the entry into the apartment but waiting before its front entrance and entering only when somebody opened the door to go out.

'A search of a person and the place where he is arrested as an incident to a lawful arrest may be justified only if he was commmitting or attempting to commit an offense in the officer's presence, or the officer had reasonable cause to believe he had committed a felony, or the arrest is made pursuant to a warrant. People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645, 648, 290 P.2d 531. Reasonable cause is such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest and strong suspicion, that the person is guilty of a crime. People v. Kilvington, 104 Cal. 86, 92, 37 P. 799 [43 Am.St.Rep. 73]. Reasonable cause to justify an arrest may consist of information obtained from others and is not limited to evidence that would be admissible at the trial on the issue of guilt. People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 656, 290 P.2d 535. Information provided by an anonymous informer is relevant on the issue of reasonable cause, but in the absence of some pressing emergency an arrest may not be based solely on such information. Willson v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 291, 294, 294 P.2d 36. Such information, together with the personal...