People v. Edwards

• Decision Date: 19 June 1956
• Docket Number: Cr. 3220
• Citation: 298 P.2d 664,142 Cal.App.2d 419
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Vertric EDWARDS, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 664

298 P.2d 664

142 Cal.App.2d 419

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Vertric EDWARDS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 3220.

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

June 19, 1956.

Vertric Edwards, in pro. per. San Quentin.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., of the State of California, Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., Thomas C. Lynch, Dist. Atty. of the City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco, for respondent.

KAUFMAN, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction on a charge of violating § 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, possession of heroin. Defendant waived jury trial.

On the evening of October 12, 1955 at approximately 9:00 p. m., Officers Shannon and Brazil of the San Francisco Police Department were conducting a narcotics investigation in Room 112 of the Congress Hotel on Fillmore Street. In the room at the time were two other persons, Edward Heide and Georgia Brown. The officers heard someone knocking at the door. Officer Shannon opened it and he and Officer Brazil saw appellant Edwards in front of the door, and another person, Frank Robinson immediately behind him. When Brazil stepped into the doorway Robinson ran down the hall, and Edwards took a half turn and started to run, but Brazil seized his wrists.

As the officer caught appellant, he saw him drop a bindle from his left hand. It fell to the floor near his feet and the officer subsequently picked it up. Tests proved that it was heroin. Brazil testified that he did not have a search warrant at any time.

Appellant told Brazil that he had brought the bindle into the hotel with him and that he had had it for some time. Appellant admitted a prior narcotics conviction. He did not testify in his own behalf.

Appellant contends that the search of his person was improper since it preceded his arrest, and cannot be justified by what it turned up, citing People v. Brown, 45 Cal.2d 640, 290 P.2d 528. His counsel moved to strike all of the evidence on the ground that it had been illegally obtained, but the motion was denied. In the Brown case on which appellant relies the officers observed defendant at about 7:30 p. m. walking across the street with one hand clenched in a fist. They approached her from behind, one officer grabbing one of her wrists, the other officer the other. They identified themselves and asked to see what was in her hand. She refused. They did not inform her that she was under arrest, but took from her hand a rubber container which was subsequently proved to contain heroin. The People there contended that if the arrest was lawful, the search was reasonable, but the court held that there was nothing apparent to the officer's senses before the arrest to indicate that defendant was committing or attempting to commit a public offense. The case differs from the present one in that the defendant therein was walking on a public street, whereas here appellant at night sought entry to a hotel room where a narcotics investigation was in progress. In the Brown case the officers seized defendant from behind before she knew of their presence, whereas here upon sight of the officers in the hotel room, appellant instantly attempted flight. In the Brown case there was nothing apparent to the officers' senses to indicate that a felony was being committed. In the present case we have the facts that appellant was attempting to visit a hotel room at night where the occupants were undergoing a narcotics investigation and the hasty flight of appellant and his companion at sight of the officers. It is clear that these circumstances were sufficient to induce a reasonable belief that appellant and his companion were engaged in the narcotics traffic. Furthermore, here the appellant voluntarily dropped the bindle of heroin to the floor. Hence there is no question of any illegal search involved. After appellant's attempted flight the officer was entitled to pick up the bindle from the floor as part of his police investigation.

It is said in the recent case of People v. Rodriguez, 140 Cal.App.2d 865, 296 P.2d 38, 41, that 'the courts are in substantial agreement as to what constitutes reasonable cause or probable cause such as will justify one in arresting or prosecuting another upon a criminal charge', quoting with approval the rule stated in People v. Kilvington, 104 Cal. 86, 92, 37 P. 799, "'There must be 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."' In the Rodriguez case the officers observed defendant in a district known to be frequented by narcotics peddlers and users. They were attracted by his nervous mannerisms, and when they talked to him he appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. Later they noticed a paper resembling a bindle protruding from a cuff of his pants. The arrest was held to be based upon reasonable cause, and the search incidental thereto, legal. While in the case now before the court, the officer did not see the bindle until he had forcibly detained appellant from his flight, it is clear that the circumstances here were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable relief that appellant was carrying narcotics on his person.

The case of People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645, 290 P.2d 531, is distinguishable, in that there the officer stopped two young men who were walking in a warehouse district at about 10:40 p. m. One of the men carried a bottle, and the officer stopped both men and searched them, believing that the one carrying...