People v. Gastelo, Cr. 11197
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (California) |
| Writing for the Court | TRAYNOR |
| Citation | 432 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 Number | Cr. 11197 |
| Decision Date | 30 October 1967 |
Page 10
v.
Max Munoz GASTELO, Defendant and Petitioner.
In Bank.
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
-
People v. Toulson, Cr. 14458
...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.
...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
...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
...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......
-
People v. Toulson, Cr. 14458
...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.
...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
...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
...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......