People v. Gaines, Cr. 6381
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | CHRISTIAN; DEVINE, P.J., and RATTIGAN |
| Citation | 265 Cal.App.2d 642,71 Cal.Rptr. 468 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Larry D. GAINES and Louis Jackson, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 12 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6381 |
Page 468
v.
Larry D. GAINES and Louis Jackson, Defendants and Appellants.
Hearing Denied Nov. 7, 1968.
Page 469
[265 Cal.App.2d 643] Michael T. Morton, San Francisco, for appellants (under appointment of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District).
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., of the State of California, Robert R. Granucci, Michael Buzzell, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.
CHRISTIAN, Associate Justice.
Defendants were convicted of possession of heroin (violation of Health and Safety Code section 11500). On appeal, they contend that in their nonjury trial the court's finding of guilt depended upon evidence procured [265 Cal.App.2d 644] as the result of an unlawful search. Our holding is to the contrary.
On June 8, 1966, at approximately 9:00 p.m., Inspectors Martin, Lawler, and Arrieta of the San Francisco Police Department went to an apartment building at 1040 Steiner Street, San Francisco, to conduct a narcotics investigation. The investigation was based on information received from an untested informant that appellant Jackson was selling narcotics in his apartment in that building. The police inspectors did not have either a warrant for the arrest of appellant Jackson or a warrant to search his apartment.
The officers were admitted into the apartment house by the manager, who confirmed the fact that appellant Jackson occupied an apartment there. The consent of the manager to enter the building was given freely. She provided the officers with a key to the apartment directly across the hallway from Jackson's apartment. The officers entered and maintained surveillance of Jackson's apartment. Inspector Martin took a position behind the slightly opened door of his hiding place, where the doorway to Jackson's apartment could be directly viewed without detection by anyone entering or leaving Jackson's apartment. The hallway separating the doorways of the opposite apartments was approximately three to five feet wide.
After keeping watch for approximately ten minutes, Inspector Martin observed appellant Gaines approach and be admitted to Jackson's apartment. Inspector Martin recognized Gaines at that time as a man whom he had previously arrested for a narcotics violation. After 15 to 20 minutes had elapsed, Gaines emerged from Jackson's apartment. As Gaines stepped into the hallway immediately outside Jackson's apartment, Inspector Martin opened his door wide, and moved rapidly into the hallway towards Gaines. As Inspector Martin entered the hallway, Gaines looked in his direction, then made a backwards throwing motion with his left hand,
Page 470
crouching at the same time. Inspector Martin observed a small and compact lightcolored object leave Gaines' left hand as the throwing motion was made. Inspector Martin immediately concluded that the parcel contained heroin. It bounced back into Jackson's apartment. Looking past Gaines, Inspector Martin saw Jackson inside the doorway to his apartment holding the door open. Inspector Martin stepped rapidly towards Gaines in an attempt to retrieve the thrown object, momentarily detaining Gaines and thereby inflicting a scratch over his eye. Going past Gaines, Inspector Martin entered the apartment and retrieved the thrown object, despite Jackson's belated attempt [265 Cal.App.2d 645] to close the door. Inspector Martin was able to keep his eye on the object during the entire sequence of events in which he retrieved it. The thrown object was seen by Inspector Martin to be a contraceptive containing a powdery substance which proved to be heroin.After entering Jackson's apartment and fielding the contraband, Inspector Martin observed in the kitchen area 'a piece of plastic lying on top of the table with some powdery substance on top of it and also saw a hypodermic needle * * * which was attached to an eye dropper which contained a brownish type fluid.' A subsequent chemical analysis showed that the powdery substance contained heroin and that the brown liquid contained an opium derivative. A strainer and toy balloons were also observed by Inspector Martin on the kitchen table. Inspector Martin testified that in his opinion these items were narcotics paraphernalia such as are used for the packaging of heroin. After viewing all these incriminating items, Inspector Martin placed appellants Gaines and Jackson under arrest.
Appellant Gaines contends that his arrest was consummated upon Inspector Martin's sudden confrontation of him in the hallway. Probable cause for an arrest concededly did not exist at that time; thus, it is argued, Gaines' ensuing furtive conduct (the throwing motion), having been evoked by unlawful police action, the fruit thereof was inadmissible (citing People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Shipstead, Cr. 8549
...448, 450, 30 Cal.Rptr. 18, 380 P.2d 658; People v. Meyers (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 601, 607, 86 Cal.Rptr. 252; People v. Gaines (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 642, 646, 71 Cal.Rptr. 468, cert. den. 394 U.S. 935, 89 S.Ct. 1212, 22 L.Ed.2d 467; People v. Carmical (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 103, 106, 65 Cal.Rptr......
-
State v. Byers, No. 43491
...Terry and Adams, lasted no more than a few moments. See Gaines v. Craven, 448 F.2d 1236 Page 795 (9th Cir. 1971) and People v. Gaines, 265 Cal.App.2d 642, 644, 71 Cal.Rptr. 468 (1st Dist.1968); United States v. Brown, 436 F.2d 702, 703--04 (9th Cir. 1970); Gilbert v. United States, 366 F.2d......
-
State v. Lewis, No. 3637
...cert. denied, 385 U.S. 826, 87 S.Ct. 58, 17 L.Ed.2d 62 (1966); State v. Hutton, 108 Ariz. 504, 502 P.2d 1323 (1972); People v. Gaines, 265 Cal.App.2d 642, 71 Cal.Rptr. 468 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 935, 89 S.Ct. 1212, 22 L.Ed.2d 467 (1969). In the instant case, there was probable cause......
-
People v. Glasspoole, Cr. 25854
...69 Cal.2d 51, 69 Cal.Rptr. 585, 442 P.2d 585) where there was no imminent destruction of the contraband. (Cf. People v. Gaines (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 642, 647 (71 Cal.Rptr. 468).) We therefore conclude that the officers did have probable cause to effect an arrest. (Citations.)' (Emphasis Com......
-
People v. Shipstead, Cr. 8549
...448, 450, 30 Cal.Rptr. 18, 380 P.2d 658; People v. Meyers (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 601, 607, 86 Cal.Rptr. 252; People v. Gaines (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 642, 646, 71 Cal.Rptr. 468, cert. den. 394 U.S. 935, 89 S.Ct. 1212, 22 L.Ed.2d 467; People v. Carmical (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 103, 106, 65 Cal.Rptr......
-
State v. Byers, No. 43491
...Terry and Adams, lasted no more than a few moments. See Gaines v. Craven, 448 F.2d 1236 Page 795 (9th Cir. 1971) and People v. Gaines, 265 Cal.App.2d 642, 644, 71 Cal.Rptr. 468 (1st Dist.1968); United States v. Brown, 436 F.2d 702, 703--04 (9th Cir. 1970); Gilbert v. United States, 366 F.2d......
-
State v. Lewis, No. 3637
...cert. denied, 385 U.S. 826, 87 S.Ct. 58, 17 L.Ed.2d 62 (1966); State v. Hutton, 108 Ariz. 504, 502 P.2d 1323 (1972); People v. Gaines, 265 Cal.App.2d 642, 71 Cal.Rptr. 468 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 935, 89 S.Ct. 1212, 22 L.Ed.2d 467 (1969). In the instant case, there was probable cause......
-
People v. Glasspoole, Cr. 25854
...69 Cal.2d 51, 69 Cal.Rptr. 585, 442 P.2d 585) where there was no imminent destruction of the contraband. (Cf. People v. Gaines (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 642, 647 (71 Cal.Rptr. 468).) We therefore conclude that the officers did have probable cause to effect an arrest. (Citations.)' (Emphasis Com......