People v. Frank
| Citation | 37 Cal.Rptr. 202,225 Cal.App.2d 339 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1964 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Walter Rayfield FRANK, Defendant and Appellant. Crim. 8751. |
Donald W. Boehme, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and David M. Rothman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The defendant was accused of the crime of possession of marijuana. (Health & Saf.Code, § 11530.) In a nonjury trial he was found guilty. He has appealed from the judgment (order granting probation).
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the marijuana was found and seized by the police officers as the result of conduct which constituted an unlawful search and seizure. The pertinent evidence will be stated.
Uluse E. Schubach, a police officer for the City of Los Angeles, arrested the defendant at his place of residence on April 11, 1962. Within a period of approximately two weeks prior to that time, the officer had been at the location of the house several times. He had received information from his superior officer that there was 'a narcotic activity' at that address. The superior officer had received the information from Inspector Kerr, but Officer Schubach did not know where Kerr obtained that information. He knew that the telephone was in the name of Rosemary Day. An automobile in the vicinity was registered to 'Mildred or Frank Walter Wallace.' The only information which the officer had as to the defendant was that on the 9th day of February a 'Frank Walter' had been arrested 'for pills.' But the officer did not know whether the person so arrested was the defendant.
Officer Schubach and three other officers, all in civilian clothes, went to the house on the day of the arrest. In response to Officer Schubach's knock, a small boy came to the door. The boy called his mother. Officer Schubach identified himself and Mrs. Rosemary Day told him to come in. He informed her that he was making an investigation as to narcotics. Mrs. Day gave him the names of the roomers in her house, stating that Walter Frank was in room 5. She further told the officer that she did not know whether she had the right to give him permission to search the rooms. She phoned her 'boy friend' and then said, 'Well, he said it's all right, so I'll take you upstairs.'
Officer Schubach went to room 5 with Mrs. Day and Sergeant Loeber. Mrs. Day knocked on the door and informed the defendant that there were men present who wished to see him. The defendant opened the door and, after Officer Schubach identified himself as a police officer, the two men entered the room. The defendant stated that he was Doug Belmont and not Frank. The officer asked where Frank was and the defendant replied that he had gone to the market and would be back in a little while. Officer Schubach then said that the officers had information as to activity in the house with respect to narcotics and that Mrs. Day had given them permission to search the premises for narcotics. The defendant said, 'Go ahead,' and the officers started their search. Marijuana was found in a closet. Thereupon the defendant admitted that he was Frank. Then the defendant said, 'Where is your search warrant?'
On cross-examination Officer Schubach testified that he did not learn that some of the rooms in the house were rented to roomers until after the search of the premises, pursuant to Mrs. Day's permission, had commenced. When she told Officer Schubach that Walter Frank 'owned the car out there' and that he lived in room 5, the officer went directly to that room. Mrs. Day and Sergeant Loeber accompanied him. Mrs. Day knocked on the door and asked, 'Frank, are you in there?' The occupant of the room replied, 'Yes.' After the defendant opened the door, the officers identified themselves. Officer Schubach further testified that he 'pointed to Mr. Frank, the defendant, and Rosemary [Mrs. Day] nodded her head that it was him.' Then Officer Schubach entered the room. He asked the defendant who he was and thereafter, before a search was commenced, he asked him if he could have permission to search the room.
Rosemary Day, whose name was Mrs. Vail at the time of the trial, testified on behalf of the defendant. She gave the officers permission to search the house. When the defendant opened the door to his room, the officers entered. She heard an officer ask the defendant for permission to search his room. About five or ten minutes after the officers entered the room the defendant made 'quite a point of the fact that he wanted a search warrant.' But Mrs. Vail was uncertain as to what occurred when the officers first entered his room. At the time she had three or four roomers, each having a separate room. The rooms were furnished. They were cleaned and maintained by their occupants
The defendant testified in his own behalf. He was taken into custody in February on an occasion when he was driving an automobile which had 'two rolls of Benzedrine tablets in it,' but he was later released. The automobile parked near his house on April 11, 1961, was registered in the names of Mildred Wallace and Walter Frank. On that day, Officer Schubach and two other officers came into his room. He said that he was not Frank. When Officer Schubach asked him for some identification, the defendant asked the officer for a search warrant. He then told the officer that he was Frank but that he wanted a search warrant. Officer Schubach replied that he did not need a search warrant, that he had been given permission by Rosemary Day. As soon as the defendant opened the door, the officers started searching the room. They were searching 'all the time' that he was asking for a search warrant.
The defendant objected to the introduction in evidence of the marijuana found in the search of his room. In the course of the argument made by the defendant's counsel, the trial judge stated: 'It is my opinion there is consent in this case by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Linke
...portion, that his co-occupant may not enter, or authorize another to enter, upon that part of the premises. (See People v. Frank (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 339, 343, 37 Cal.Rptr. 202.) In a residence with four occupants a bathroom is not usually the exclusive domain of one to the exclusion of th......
-
People v. Linke
...portion, that his co-occupant may not enter, or authorize another to enter, upon that part of the premises. (See People v. Frank (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 339, 343, 37 Cal.Rptr. 202.) In a residence with four occupants a bathroom is not usually the exclusive domain of one to the exclusion of th......
-
Casetta v. U.S. Rubber Co.
...129, 380 P.2d 817; Zak v. State Farm, etc., Ins. Co. (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 500, 506--507, 42 Cal.Rptr. 908; People v. Frank (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 339, 342, 37 Cal.Rptr. 202.) This is not to say that he cannot show that there was substantial evidence to support either theory, and, upon that ......
-
People v. Daniels
...consent and over the objection of a co-tenant then present whose property is seized as a product of the search. (People v. Frank, 225 Cal.App.2d 339, 342, 37 Cal.Rptr. 202.) Pertinent and distinguishing circumstances at bench include the fact the person consenting to the search was the moth......