People v. Fierro
| Decision Date | 04 August 1965 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3694 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Oscar W. FIERRO, Defendant and Appellant. |
S. Carter McMorris, Sacramento (Court appointed), for appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., by Doris H. Maier, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward A. Hinz, Jr. and Daniel J. Kremer, Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, for respondent.
Defendant Fierro was tried and convicted of possessing heroin in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11500. Defendant contends that the heroin introduced in evidence was the product of an illegal search and seizure.
On July 13, 1963, Fierro registered at a motel in West Sacramento under an assumed name. The motel manager, John Sommer, suspected him of being a narcotic user and pusher because the usually left his room only at nighttime, did not want the maids to clean his room, had visitors after dark and had a number of incoming and outgoing telephone calls. On June 17 when defendant went to the motel office to pay for his room, Mr. Sommer noted that his eyes did not focus properly and that his features were not 'content.' Mr. Sommer did not want a narcotic user or pusher living at his motel. Mr. Sommer waited until defendant left the premises, then entered his room. The first item he observed was a white scratch pad on the desk with a burn mark, which he thought had been caused by a very hot spoon. He checked the wastepaper basket in the bathroom and found candy wrappers, and observed candy bars lying about the room. He thought the candy reflected an addict's need for sweets. He opened defendant's closed but unlocked suitcase and saw four vials containing pills or capsules, a spoon and a glass vial with a rubber plunger. Sommer returned to his office, phoned the Yolo County sheriff's office and reported what he had found. He spoke to a detective in the sheriff's office, who told him to return to the room and get some samples of the pills and turn them over to him. Whereupon he returned to defendant's room and took two pills and two capsules from the vials in the suitcase. He noticed a plastic bag containing 10 to 15 powder-filled rubber balloons and a folded paper containing white powders. He took two of the balloons and a sample of the white powder. Then he returned to his office and again called the sheriff's office. The sheriff's detective arrived and Sommer gave him the materials he had taken from the defendant's room. Defendant was then arrested. Upon analysis the powder in the ballons was identified as heroin and the paper bindle as cocaine. The capsules were seconal and the pills methadone.
Defendant presented no evidence, basing his defense on the contention that the narcotics found in his motel room were the product of an illegal search and seizure.
Generally, there can be no search of a house without a search warrant except as an incident to a lawful arrest therein; probable cause to believe that an article sought is concealed in the house furnishes no justification for searching it without a warrant. (People v. Burke, 61 Cal.2d 575, 579, 39 Cal.Rptr. 531, 394 P.2d 67.) Constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to the citizen's hotel room no less than his home. (Stoner v. State of California, 376 U.S. 483, 490, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856.)
The Attorney General does not argue lawfulness of the search of Fierro's hotel room. He points out that the invasion and seizure were the actions of a private citizen, while constitutional limitations on search and seizure are aimed at governmental activity. He argues that the sheriff's detective requested Sommer to go into Fierro's hotel room for the limited purpose of acquiring samples of the pills; that discovery and sequestration of the heroin were not part of the mission Sommer was performing for the sheriff's office; in effect, to use the parlance of another branch of the law, Sommer was on 'an errand of his own' and 'outside the scope of his agency' when he found and took the heroin. Defendant, on the other hand, argues that Sommer, the private citizen, was an agent of the sheriff throughout his second foray into the hotel room.
The purpose of the rule excluding illegally seized evidence is deterrence of the lawless acts of federal and state officials. (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 648, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081; People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 448-449, 282 P.2d 905, 50 A.L.R.2d 513.) A lawless search and seizure by a private person acting in a private capacity is not a violation of constitutional guaranties by a state or federal agency. (Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 475, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048; People v. Tarantino, 45 Cal.2d 590, 595, 290 P.2d 505; People v. Randazzo, 220 Cal.App.2d 768, 770-776, 34 Cal.Rptr. 65; People v. Johnson, 153 Cal.App.2d 870, 873-877, 315 P.2d 468.) If the private person perpetrates a lawless entry and seizure as the agent of public officials, the vicarious violation of constitutional limitations demands invocation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Baker
...Cal.App.2d 478, 481-483, 58 Cal.Rptr. 412; People v. Potter (1966) 240 Cal.App.2d 621, 630, 49 Cal.Rptr. 892; People v. Fierro (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 344, 347, 46 Cal.Rptr. 132; and People v. Randazzo (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 768, 769-777, 34 Cal.Rptr. Once the police were apprised of the manag......
-
People v. Smith
...proof his former friends, including appellant. Because of the passive and active police posed by Dolson (People v. Fierro, 236 Cal.App.2d 344, 348, 46 Cal.Rptr. 132), we conclude that even if he alone was the active party, he must be considered an agent of the III. THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF......
-
People v. McKinnon
...were to open and search a specific package at the express direction or request of law enforcement authorities. (People v. Fierro (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 344, 347, 46 Cal.Rptr. 132.) None of these situations, however, is presented in the case at An alternate ground of our holding in Stapleton ......
-
Stapleton v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
...operation, although without a specific instruction from the police, Bradford searched petitioner's car. (See People v. Fierro, supra, 236 Cal.App.2d 344, 347, 46 Cal.Rptr. 132; compare People v. Moran (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 410, 415, 333 P.2d 243.) Accordingly, even though police officers di......
-
Table of Cases null
...v. Fierro, 1 Cal. 4th 173, 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 426, 821 P.2d 1302 (1991)—Ch. 2, §11.1.4(1); Ch. 4-B, §3.10; C, §9.1.5(2) People v. Fierro, 236 Cal. App. 2d 344, 46 Cal. Rptr. 132 (3d Dist. 1965)—Ch. 5-A, §2.1.1(3)(b)[1][a] People v. Figueroa, 41 Cal. 3d 714, 224 Cal. Rptr. 719, 715 P.2d 680 (19......
-
Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
...v. Tarantino (1955) 45 Cal.2d 590, 595 (officer hired and paid engineer to plant bug in hotel room); People v. Fierro (3d Dist.1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 344, 347 (officer asked motel manager to search D's room). A private search may also be considered government action if the government has know......