People v. Gonzales, Cr. 5513

• Citation: 141 Cal.App.2d 604,297 P.2d 50
• Decision Date: 16 May 1956
• Docket Number: Cr. 5513
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mike Avalos GONZALES, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals

Page 50

297 P.2d 50

141 Cal.App.2d 604

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mike Avalos GONZALES, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 5513.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

May 16, 1956.

Forno & Umann, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., John S. McInerny, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

MOORE, Presiding Justice.

Having been convicted of illegal possession of heroin and marihuana and of having been previously convicted of a violation of section 11500, Health and Safety Code, defendant now seeks a reversal of the judgment on the grounds that (1) his home was illegally searched at the time of his arrest; (2) he was arrested without probable cause and (3) appellant was prejudiced by the court's refusal to require the arresting officer to divulge the identity of the informant whose report was the basis for defendant's arrest.

About seven p. m. of March 9, 1955, the Narcotics Division of the Los Angeles Police Department received a telephone call to the effect that Mike Gonzales was using heroin and actually had the narcotic in his home. The informant had given information on prior occasions to the police and they had confidence in his integrity and reliability. Officer Broadhurst who had received the message accompanied by Officer Lucarelli called on appellant, knocked on the latter's door and asked to see him. When he appeared and identified himself as Gonzales, Broadhurst searched him and removed from his left shirt pocket a green capsule box containing gelatine capsules which were filled with white powder. Appellant freely stated that he had paid $65 for 60 'caps' of heroin and they were for his own use; that no one else in the home knew anything about them; that the outfit in his pocket was his own, as well as the marihuana cigarette in his brother-in-law's gray suit; that he had purchased three of them a short time ago and had forgotten all about that one; that he used about a gram of heroin daily. Four people were present when appellant was searched, but the cigarette was taken from the suit in a different room by Officer Lucarelli alone.

The informant was an operator for the police department; he had wisely advised the officers on previous occasions in narcotic arrests. They had found him reliable. Officer Broadhurst declined to reveal his name, as contrary to public interest.

The evidence adopted by the court is that when the officers, acting upon credible information, knocked at appellant's door, he asked them in. They arrested him, found one vial of heroin on his person. Then they searched the house and found additional narcotics and some instruments.

Since the court believed the officer's testimony that he had received information of appellant's possession of heroin and that he had narcotics in his home, a felony, and that his informant was a responsible person, it held the arrest legal and the search following was lawful and not violative of the Cahan rule. People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434, 282 P.2d 905.

The foregoing statement of appellant's arrest and the search of his home readily answer his criticism of the receipt of the evidence obtained by the officers. They relied upon their informer because they knew and trusted him. Hence, the arrest was lawful. Penal Code, sec. 836, subd. 3. Reasonable grounds for justifying an arrest may consist of information obtained from others and such information is not necessarily such as would be admissible at the trial of the arrestee on the question of his guilt. People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 290 P.2d 535.

The weight to be accorded the information upon which the officer acts in making an arrest for a felony is to be determined by the trial court in the exercise of a sound discretion. United States v. Li Fat Tong, 2 Cir., 152 F.2d 650, 652. Where officers have lawfully entered a house and find reasonable cause for believing the occupant has committed a felony, they may arrest him without a warrant. In re Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756, 761, 264 P.2d 513.

Appellant...