People v. Dean
| Decision Date | 20 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5891 |
| Citation | 151 Cal.App.2d 165,311 P.2d 85 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Helen DEAN, Defendant and Appellant. |
Harold J. Ackerman, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James and John S. McInerny, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant and her husband were tried upon an information charging three separate counts of illegal possession of narcotics. (Health and Safety Code, § 11500.) The husband was acquitted of all charges but appellant was convicted of counts I and II charging possession of heroin and eukodal, a derivative of opium. Her motion for a new trial and probation having been denied, she was sentenced to State prison but the court suspended the sentence and granted probation on condition that she serve one year in the county jail and refrain perpetually from further illegal use of narcotics. She bases her demand for reversal solely upon the concept that the evidence introduced against her had been procured by a violation of the exclusionary rule, announced in People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905. A recital of the facts will disclose that such rule was not violated.
About 7:30 p.m. Officer Schmidt of the Los Angeles police was informed that Albert Dean was a peddler of narcotics and had a quantity in his home. Not knowing the address, the informant accompanied the officers to the home. Schmidt had previously received accurate information with respect to other crimes from the same informant; had twice acted upon such information and found it to be reliable. Acting pursuant to the information, Officers Schmidt and Petevich were directed to the Dean home by the informant. They had neither warrant of arrest nor search warrant. They entered, arrested the husband, searched the premises and obtained two bottles of benzedrine. After appellant denied that she had any other narcotics and the officers stated that a police matron would be summoned to search her, she announced that that would not be necessary and removed from her brassiere two bottles containing a large quantity of heroin. She declared that all narcotics in the house belonged to her; that she intended to sell them. The narcotics discovered by the search were found to be heroin, codeine, dihydrohydroxy and eukodal.
Not only did appellant present the drugs to the officers but also she took the stand to say that she had been in possession of the capsules of heroin, had purchased them from a man in downtown Los Angeles and that her husband knew nothing about her purchase or the presence of the drugs in the home.
Despite her testimonial admissions she contends that her arrest was unlawful for the reasons that the officers had neither warrant for her arrest nor a search warrant and that they were not justified in acting upon information from a reliable informant. In this she is unmindful of the law that an arrest may be made by police officers acting solely on the advice of a reliable, confidential informant. People v. Guerrera, 149 Cal.App.2d 133, 307 P.2d 940, 942; People v. Penson, 148 Cal.App.2d 537, 307 P.2d 24, 25; People v. Montes, 146 Cal.App.2d 530, 303 P.2d 1064, 1066. Appellant is obviously misled by those decisions where the information was received from anonymous informants. While the information imparted to the officer by that type of informer is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Swayze
...paramount, nor is his credibility in issue with respect to the reasonable grounds for making the search or arrest. (People v. Dean, 151 Cal.App.2d 165, 167, 311 P.2d 85; People v. Weathers, 162 Cal.App.2d 545, 546-547, 328 P.2d 222.) Only the credibility of the police officer is in issue. I......
-
Priestly v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco
...supra, 46 Cal.2d at page 294-295, 294 P.2d at page 38-39; People v. Dupee, 151 Cal.App.2d 364, 367, 311 P.2d 568; People v. Dean, 151 Cal.App.2d 165, 167, 311 P.2d 85; Lorenzen v. Superior Court, 150 Cal.App.2d 506, 513, 310 P.2d 180. In the present case defendant objected to the officer's ......
-
Butler v. United States
...P.2d 36; People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 656, 290 P.2d 535; People v. Dupee, 151 Cal.App.2d 364, 367, 311 P.2d 568; People v. Dean, 151 Cal. App.2d 165, 167, 311 P.2d 85; Lorenzen v. Superior Court, 150 Cal.App.2d 506, 513, 310 P.2d 180; Trowbridge v. Superior Court, 144 Cal.App.2d 13, 18,......
-
People v. Scott
......White, 159 Cal.App.2d 586, 324 P.2d 296. The trial court must determine from the evidence before it whether the informer was reliable and whether the officer relied on the information. It is for the court to say whether the officer acted reasonably under the circumstances. People v. Dean, 151 Cal.App.2d 165, 311 P.2d 85; Lorenzen v. Superior Court, 150 Cal.App.2d 506, 310 P.2d 180. Under the facts of this case there can be no question that the trial court properly concluded that the arrest was legal. Defendant also points to the fact that the officers resorted to trickery to get ......