People v. Gann

Decision Date03 December 1968
Docket NumberCr. 14945
Citation73 Cal.Rptr. 502,267 Cal.App.2d 811
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sarah Irene GANN, Defendant and Appellant.

H. Clay Jacke, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Frederick R. Millar, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

FOURT, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of possessing marijuana.

In an information filed in Los Angeles on May 25, 1967, Sarah Irene Gann with codefendants Andre Charles Swader and Georgann Buerger was charged with possessing marijuana on February 7, 1967. Each defendant pleaded not guilty. A jury trial was waived and it was stipulated that the matter be submitted upon the transcript of the proceedings had at the preliminary hearing, each side to be permitted to introduce additional testimony if so minded. Swader and Buerger testified in their own behalf. Each defendant was found guilty as charged. Gann was sentenced to the state prison and she has appealed.

Officers of the Pasadena Police Department and agents of the State Narcotic Bureau had received information that at the apartment of appellant there were large quantities of marijuana, LSD, and amphetamine sulfate pills. Agents and policemen went to Gann's apartment at about 1 a.m., February 7, 1967, for the purpose of attempting to make a purchase of some narcotics from her. Upon arrival at the apartment one of the men knocked on the front door and appellant opened the door. At that time the officers smelled a strong odor of burning marijuana emitted through the open door. The door was closed very quickly and immediately the officers heard the sound of running feet. At that point one of the agents kicked the door open and the officers entered and went to a bedroom where they saw appellant and her two codefendants and one other person. Swader upon seeing the officers hurriedly placed a partly consumed marijuana cigarette under the bed. The cigarette was recovered at once and was still hot to the touch. After retrieving the partly consumed cigarette, the officers placed all four people in the apartment under arrest. Each defendant and all of them were advised of their constitutional rights. A search was then conducted. In Swader's coat was found a secreted plastic bag containing marijuana. Buerger's coat was similarly found to contain a plastic bag of marijuana. Two other partially smoked marijuana cigarettes were found in an ash tray in the living room, another marijuana cigarette was found in the bathroom and two more were located in the bedroom. Appellant did not testify nor did she offer any defense.

There was probable cause for the officers to enter appellant's apartment under the circumstances. The officers had a perfect right to knock on the door of the apartment. (See People v. Russell, 196 Cal.App.2d 58, 63--64, 16 Cal.Rptr. 228.) Appellant opened the door, not under any unlawful assertion of authority and then by her actions permitted the marijuana smoke to escape and pervade the hallway and entrance to the apartment. When the officers smelled the burning marijuana, as skilled, experienced and trained narcotics officers, they had probable cause to arrest appellant. (See People v. Barcenas, 251 Cal.App.2d 405, 407, 59 Cal.Rptr. 419; People v. Layne, 235 Cal.App.2d 188, 193, 45 Cal.Rptr. 110; People v. Langley, 182 Cal.App.2d 89, 92, 5 Cal.Rptr. 826; People v. Tisby, 180 Cal.App.2d 574, 5 Cal.Rptr. 614; People v. Clifton, 169 Cal.App.2d 617, 619, 337 P.2d 871.) The sudden closing of the door and the running feet constituted furtive conduct and only added to what the officers then knew. (See People v. Ruiz, 196 Cal.App.2d 695, 699-700, 16 Cal.Rptr. 855; People v. Lawton, 186 Cal.App.2d 834, 835--836, 9 Cal.Rptr. 122; People v. Merino, 151 Cal.App.2d 594, 597--598, 312 P.2d 48.) Under these circumstances the officers were not required to comply strictly with the provisions of section 844 of the Penal Code. Further, there was no objection at the time of trial and the contention cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. (See People v. Flores, 68 Cal.2d 563, 567--568, 68 Cal.Rptr. 161, 440 P.2d 233; PEOPLE V. DELEON, 260 CAL.APP.2D ---, --- - ---, 67 CAL.RPTR. 45.)A

Mr. Al Mathews represented appell...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Newman
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 11 Enero 1971
    ...Cal.App.2d 188, 193, 45 Cal.Rptr. 110; Vaillancourt v. Superior Court, 273 Cal.App.2d 791, 797, 78 Cal.Rptr. 615; People v. Gann, 267 Cal.App.2d 811, 812-813, 73 Cal.Rptr. 502.) Assuming however, that they did not, at that time, have cause to arrest the occupants of the car, the officers, h......
  • People v. Gaulden
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 9 Enero 1974
    ...trial strategy. (People v. Simms (1970), 10 Cal.App.3d 299, 316, 89 Cal.Rptr. 1.) Finally, to paraphrase People v. Gann (1968), 267 Cal.App.2d 811, 814, 73 Cal.Rptr. 502, defendant brought about his situation and no attorney could be expected to extricate him by magic. Trial counsel did all......
  • People v. Nichols
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 24 Octubre 1969
    ...belief that marijuana was in the house. (Vaillancourt v. Superior Court (1969) 273 A.C.A. 889, 78 Cal.Rptr. 615; People v. Gann (1968) 267 A.C.A. 915, 73 Cal.Rptr. 502.) The fact that defendant opened the door and acknowledged that he lived there supported the belief that he was jointly or ......
  • Vaillancourt v. Superior Court for Placer County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 9 Junio 1969
    ...735, 71 Cal.Rptr. 468.) We therefore conclude that the officers did have probable cause to effect an arrest. (See, People v. Gann (1968) 267 A.C.A. 915, 916, 73 Cal.Rptr. 502; People v. Barcenas (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 405, 59 Cal.Rptr. As to the occupancy of the room, the test of whether the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT