People v. Gastelo, Cr. 11197

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (California)
Writing for the CourtTRAYNOR
Citation432 P.2d 706,67 Cal.2d 586,63 Cal.Rptr. 10
Parties, 432 P.2d 706 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Max Munoz GASTELO, Defendant and Petitioner.
Docket NumberCr. 11197
Decision Date30 October 1967

Page 10

63 Cal.Rptr. 10
67 Cal.2d 586, 432 P.2d 706
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Max Munoz GASTELO, Defendant and Petitioner.
Cr. 11197.
Supreme Court of California,
In Bank.
Oct. 30, 1967.

Page 11

[432 P.2d 707] Frederic G. Marks, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Clark Moore and Richard Tanzer, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

[67 Cal.2d 587] TRAYNOR, Chief Justice.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction of possession of heroin in violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code.

The facts are not in dispute. Los Angeles police officers obtained a warrant for the search of the apartment of Donna Trujillo, with whom defendant was living, on the basis of a reliable informant's report that he had purchased narcotics from defendant at Donna's apartment more than 30 times during the previous 45 days. His last purchase was on December 23, 1964. About 8:20 in the morning of Saturday, December 26, 1964, four officers went to Donna's apartment to execute the warrant. Outside they saw an automobile that they believed was defendant's. Two officers went to the rear door of the apartment and two to the front. Without knocking, announcing their purpose or demanding admittance, they forced entry through both doors. Defendant and Donna Trujillo were asleep in the bedroom, and the officers pulled defendant from the bed. They served the warrant, searched the apartment, and found a small packet of heroin between the mattress and box springs of the bed. Defendant was arrested. Two days later, he confessed to possession of the heroin.

Defendant contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error in admitting the heroin into evidence over his objection that it was illegally obtained in violation of Penal Code, section 1531.

Section 1531 provides that to execute a search warrant 'The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, * * * if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance.'

The Attorney General contends that compliance with section 1531 was excused under the rule of People v. Maddox (1956) 46 Cal.2d 301, 294 P.2d 6.

In Maddox, we held that compliance with the substantially identical notice requirements of Penal Code, section 844 for making arrests 1 was excused, if the facts known to the officer before his entry were sufficient to support his good faith belief that compliance would have increased his

Page 12

[432 P.2d 708] peril or frustrated the arrest. Later cases have included the prevention of destruction of evidence as an additional...

To continue reading

Request your trial
125 practice notes
  • People v. Toulson, Cr. 14458
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 22, 1969
    ...486--487, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856; People v. Reeves (1964) 61 Cal.2d 268, 38 Cal.Rptr. 1, 391 P.2d 393.) In People v. Gastelo (1967) 67 Cal.2d 586, 588, 589, 63 Cal.Rptr. 10, 12, 432 P.2d 706, 708. Chief Justice Traynor stated: 'Under the Fourth Amendment, a specific showing must alway......
  • People v. Hoag, No. C031031.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 28, 2000
    ...Cal.Rptr. 348, 461 P.2d 628; Greven v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 287, 290, 78 Cal.Rptr. 504, 455 P.2d 432; People v. Gastelo (1967) 67 Cal.2d 586, 588-589, 63 Cal.Rptr. 10, 432 P.2d 706; see People v. Rosales (1968) 68 Cal.2d 299, 304-305, 66 Cal.Rptr. 1, 437 P.2d 489 [Pen.Code, § 844......
  • Parsley v. Superior Court, Riverside County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 27, 1972
    ...rationale of the cases involving Penal Code, § 844, are equally applicable to cases arising under Penal Code, § 1531. (People v. Gastelo, 67 Cal.2d 586, 587-588, 63 Cal.Rptr. 10, 432 P.2d 706; Kinsey v. Superior Court, 263 Cal.App.2d 188, 191, 69 Cal.Rptr. 556.) It is well settled that poli......
  • The People v. Hoag
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 28, 2000
    ...questions. (Duke v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.3d 314, 325; Greven v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 287, 290; People v. Gastelo (1967) 67 Cal.2d 586, 588-589; see People v. Rosales (1968) 68 Cal.2d 299, 304-305 [Pen. Code, 844 (arrest Under the Fourth Amendment, a person may challenge th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
125 cases
  • People v. Toulson, Cr. 14458
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 22, 1969
    ...486--487, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856; People v. Reeves (1964) 61 Cal.2d 268, 38 Cal.Rptr. 1, 391 P.2d 393.) In People v. Gastelo (1967) 67 Cal.2d 586, 588, 589, 63 Cal.Rptr. 10, 12, 432 P.2d 706, 708. Chief Justice Traynor stated: 'Under the Fourth Amendment, a specific showing must alway......
  • People v. Hoag, No. C031031.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 28, 2000
    ...Cal.Rptr. 348, 461 P.2d 628; Greven v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 287, 290, 78 Cal.Rptr. 504, 455 P.2d 432; People v. Gastelo (1967) 67 Cal.2d 586, 588-589, 63 Cal.Rptr. 10, 432 P.2d 706; see People v. Rosales (1968) 68 Cal.2d 299, 304-305, 66 Cal.Rptr. 1, 437 P.2d 489 [Pen.Code, § 844......
  • Parsley v. Superior Court, Riverside County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 27, 1972
    ...rationale of the cases involving Penal Code, § 844, are equally applicable to cases arising under Penal Code, § 1531. (People v. Gastelo, 67 Cal.2d 586, 587-588, 63 Cal.Rptr. 10, 432 P.2d 706; Kinsey v. Superior Court, 263 Cal.App.2d 188, 191, 69 Cal.Rptr. 556.) It is well settled that poli......
  • The People v. Hoag
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • September 28, 2000
    ...questions. (Duke v. Superior Court (1969) 1 Cal.3d 314, 325; Greven v. Superior Court (1969) 71 Cal.2d 287, 290; People v. Gastelo (1967) 67 Cal.2d 586, 588-589; see People v. Rosales (1968) 68 Cal.2d 299, 304-305 [Pen. Code, 844 (arrest Under the Fourth Amendment, a person may challenge th......
  • 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