People v. Cano
| Decision Date | 13 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 10865 |
| Citation | 50 Cal.Rptr. 654,241 Cal.App.2d 484 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. Hector Raul CANO, Defendant and Appellant. |
Mitchell W. Egers, Los Angeles, under appointment by the District Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Rose-Marie Gruenwald, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Appellant was found guilty of possession of narcotics in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. Trial was to the court. Three prior felony convictions alleged in the information were found to be true.
A search of appellant's person at the time of his arrest yielded two rubber condoms containing heroin in his right front sweater pocket. Appellant contends here as he did at the trial, there was no probable cause to arrest him and to search his person.
Sergeant Dennis Cook, a veteran narcotics investigator for the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, having been informed from a reliable source, that one Vidal Aguilar was engaged in selling narcotics, investigated and found that Aguilar had a substantial narcotics history. He placed Aguilar under surveillance and discovered that the suspect would leave his home or work almost daily and visit a residence on Sidney Street in East Los Angeles. Aguilar resided elsewhere. The Sidney Street residence was unoccupied. Aguilar, However, paid for the utilities. Cook testified that in his experience in the narcotics field, sellers of narcotics would often use a site separate from their residence or work to cache their narcotics.
On October 12, 1964, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Cook followed Aguilar to the Sidney Street residence. When Aguilar left, he drove north on Sidney Street to Eagle Street, made a left turn and parked on the north side of Eagle Street, east of Eastern Avenue. After a few minutes wait, Aguilar turned the car around and parked on the south side of Eagle Street. Aguilar continued to change the position of his car every few minutes. Finally, Aguilar made contact with a man recognized by Cook as Frank Ortiz a known narcotics user. Cook had seen Ortiz make a contact with Aguilar on the previous day. Ortiz approached Augilar's car, leaned on the driver's side, then left after a few seconds. Thereupon, Aguilar and Ortiz left the location.
Cook testified that narcotics peddlers who arrive early at a rendezvous, will often move around in order to avoid police observation, particularly in the daytime.
The following day, October 13, 1964, at approximately 4:00 p.m., Cook again followed Aguilar. Aguilar stopped at the Sidney Street residence and remained for approximately twenty minutes. Aguilar then drove north on Sidney Street, turned left, and parked east of Eastern Avenue. Cook circled the block, and as he turned onto Eagle Street, he noticed Aguilar walking to a Studebaker occupied by appellant and parked directly across the street from Aguilar's automobile. Aguilar placed his elbows on the open window of the car and leaned forward into the car. Aguilar immediately departed. Appellant drove away.
Cook followed appellant through rush hour traffic. Concurrently, Cook was in radio contact with another sheriff's vehicle containing Sergeant Landry and Deputies Stoops and Weldon.
During the course of a lane change, made to escape a stalled vehicle, appellant turned to view the traffic behind him. At this time, Cook was directly behind appellant at a distance of approximately 15 feet. Lighting conditions were good. Cook testified that he could see appellant's eyes but was unable to see his pupils. He therefore suspected that appellant was under the influence of narcotics.
In radio communication with the other sheriff's vehicle, Cook informed Landry and the deputies in the other vehicle of his belief that Aguilar had made a delivery of narcotics to appellant who might be under the influence of narcotics and advised them to continue to follow appellant and '* * * arrest him if he stopped his vehicle.' Deputy Stoops, one of the officers in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Adam
...court properly ignored--the fairly tenable theory that Cron was entitled to make a full-blown arrest (cf. People v. Cano, 241 Cal.App.2d 484, 487, fn. 1, 50 Cal.Rptr. 654) is that at no time was defendant put on notice that he was facing such a claim. (Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S.......
- Farnsworth v. Western Pac. R. Co.