People v. Chavira
| Decision Date | 25 August 1967 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 12308 |
| Citation | 61 Cal.Rptr. 407,253 Cal.App.2d 928 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Adam Deanda CHAVIRA, Defendant and Appellant. |
Ronald M. Sohigian, Beverly Hills, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lawrence E. Mindell, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant Adam Deanda Chavira was charged by information with violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code (possession of narcotics).
Trial without jury was held on September 10, 1963, and defendant was adjudged guilty. On October 2, 1963, the date set for sentencing, criminal proceedings were adjourned, and defendant was remanded to the custody of the sheriff, who was ordered to file a petition in department 95 of the superior court pursuant to section 6451 of the Penal Code 1 in order that an examination and hearing could be had to determine whether the defendant was addicted to the use of narcotic drugs or was in imminent danger of becoming addicted. On January 26, 1966 defendant returned to court and at this time probation was denied and the defendant was sentenced to prison for the term prescribed by law.
Defendant appeals from the judgment, urging that evidence used to convict him was obtained by unlawful search and seizure and that statements were introduced in violation of the doctrines set forth in Escobedo v. State of Illinois (1964) 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977, and People v. Dorado (1965) 62 Cal.2d 338, 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361.
The circumstances surrounding the arrest of the defendant were as follows: On or about the 11th of March 1963, Manuel Diaz, a narcotic agent for the State of California, received a telephone call from one Joseph Garcia. Garcia was an informant, and had on 10 previous occasions given Diaz reliable information leading to arrests for narcotic violations. Diaz last had heard from Garcia some three months prior to this call. Garcia always contacted Diaz by telephone using the name of 'Joe.' On this occasion Garcia called from the county jail, where he then was a prisoner.
Diaz and R. T. Pizzo, a Los Angeles Police Department narcotic officer, went to the jail and talked to Garcia. Diaz testified Garcia gave the following information: It was admitted that this description could fit many people.
Diaz returned to his office after receiving this information and looked through the criminal identification and investigation 'rap' sheets, finding one with defendant's name on it. This sheet contained the information that Chavira had previously been arrested for a narcotics violation. It was shown at the trial that defendant had served a 30 day sentence in 1961 for a misdemeanor violation involving barbiturates.
On the following day, March 14, 1963, Diaz went to the cafe, but did not observe the defendant there. Diaz returned the next day with Pizzo and an agent named Chadwick at approximately 9:45 a.m. The three entered the cafe, which was then occupied by two customers, a waitress, and the cook. The officers had neither a search warrant nor a warrant for the arrest of defendant or any other person. Diaz stood at the door with his partners behind him and began to examine customers as they entered the cafe for evidence of recent narcotics usage. Two persons were thus examined and questioned before the defendant approached the cafe. At about 10:00 a.m., 15 minutes after the officers first arrived at the cafe, defendant was seen approaching the cafe. Diaz stepped outside and accosted him a few feet from the door.
The testimony of Diaz as to what occurred was that he identified himself by showing his badge and saying, 'Narcotic officer.' He then asked defendant if his name was 'Adam.' Defendant replied, 'Yes.' Diaz asked, 'Do you have any narcotics on you?' The reply was a shrug of the shoulders, a step backwards, and either the remark, 'I know you've got me,' 'I know you got me,' or 'Yeah, I know.' At this time defendant's hand was observed to be in his left front pants' pocket. He began to remove his hand, at which time Diaz grabbed the hand and felt the outside of the pocket. He then asked defendant to remove his hand slowly, and then Diaz reached into the pocket and pulled out a red ballon containing 10 capsules, inside of which was a white powder later analyzed as heroin. The search was premised upon the officer's belief that defendant had narcotics on him.
Defendant was then placed under arrest for the possession of heroin. Defendant was asked about the balloon. The substance of this conversation was defendant's statement: Diaz then took defendant to the cafe, where he was detained by the agents.
There being no warrant for the arrest or search of defendant, there must be sufficient facts known to the officer to justify the arrest under Penal Code section 836. 2 We have concluded that the officer had reasonable or probable cause sufficient to justify the arrest and search of defendant.
The information upon which the agent acted was a description which included defendant's name, obtained from a known informer who had proven reliable on prior occasions. This information was that defendant was selling heroin at the cafe. Information from a known and reliable informant can justify an arrest. (People v. Melchor (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 685, 689, 47 Cal.Rptr. 235).
The officer ascertained the fact that a man with defendant's name was found to have a prior narcotic violation. At the location of the cafe specified by the informer, a man bearing the description given identified himself as having the first name of 'Adam.' In addition to the description, name and location (which had proved reliable), the information Diaz possessed included the accusation that defendant had sold heroin at the cafe. There were, then, adequate facts known to officer Diaz to give probable cause for the search.
Under the circumstances before us, after the identity of 'Adam' had been established, it is obvious that the stage of investigation had focused upon defendant to the point of accusation. Clearly, it tests credulity to say that Diaz would have permitted the defendant to leave; Diaz had found the very person he had been informed about, and his pattern of action on that very day belies any suggestion short of accusation. Certainly the next question posed by Diaz ('Do you have any narcotics on you?') was nothing but the process of interrogation that lent itself to eliciting incriminatory statements. (People v. Stockman (1965) 63 Cal.2d 494, 498--499, 47 Cal.Rptr. 365, 407 P.2d 277.) As stated above, while we conclude that d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Thomas
...Cal.2d 438, 448, 58 Cal.Rptr. 115, 426 P.2d 515; People v. Wright, 273 Cal.App.2d 325, 333--334, 78 Cal.Rptr. 75; People v. Chavira, 253 Cal.App.2d 928, 932, 61 Cal.Rptr. 407.) The question, therefore, is whether a consent to search is the kind of statement that Miranda is all We have found......
-
People v. Wright
...of custody therefore then arrached notwithstanding the subjective intent otherwise of the interrogator. (See People v. Chavira, 253 Cal.App.2d 928, 932, 61 Cal.Rptr. 407.) When Officers Burkett and Rodriguez went to the Wrights' apartment, they reasonably suspected, on the basis of what the......
-
People v. Ceccone
...that lent itself to eliciting incriminatory statements. (People v. Garavito, 65 Cal.2d 761, 56 Cal.Rptr. 289, 423 P.2d 217; People v. Chavira, 253 Cal.App.2d --- f , 61 Cal.Rptr. 407; People v. Diaz, 238 Cal.App.2d 636, 48 Cal.Rptr. In People v. Alesi, supra, 67 Cal.2d --- g, 64 Cal.Rptr. 1......
-
People v. Merchant
...46 Cal.Rptr. 622, 405 P.2d 862; People v. Goedecke, 65 Cal.2d 850, 858--859, 56 Cal.Rptr. 625, 423 P.2d 777; but see People v. Chavira, 253 A.C.A. 1025, 61 Cal.Rptr. 407.) 3. As to events which occurred after his arrest, appellant contends the failure of the police to advise him of an indig......