People v. Goodo, Cr. 5729

• Decision Date: 17 December 1956
• Docket Number: Cr. 5729
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Henry GOODO, Jr. and Eugene Miller, Defendants, Henry Goodo, Jr., Appellant.

Page 776

304 P.2d 776

147 Cal.App.2d 7

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Henry GOODO, Jr. and Eugene Miller, Defendants Henry Goodo, Jr., Appellant.

Cr. 5729.

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

Dec. 17, 1956.

Hearing Denied Jan. 16, 1957.

Levy, Russell & DeRoy and Jack Levine, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

FOX, Justice.

Appellant challenges his conviction of the possession of marijuana (Health and Safety Code, sec. 11500) on the grounds that his arrest was without reasonable or probable cause; that the search was therefore unlawful; and that the evidence thus seized, on which his conviction was based, was inadmissible. We have concluded that his position is well taken.

On March 18, 1956, at approximately 9:30 p. m. Police Officers Blankenship and Ward stopped a Mr. Bruce for interrogation on the corner of 29th Street and Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles. He told them that he lived at 1201 West 30th Street and volunteered the information that a certain person occupying quarters in the same apartment building in which he lived had a pound of marijuana in his room and that this person would be home about 11:00 p. m Bruce was not a confidential informant. The officers had never had any previous dealings with him. They had never seen him before and knew nothing of his past record or reliability. The had not had appellant under surveillance prior to this time.

Acting on this information, the officers proceeded to 1201 West 30th Street, arriving at approximately 10:15 p. m. Burce let them into the community kitchen, which was adjacent to a hallway leading to appellant's room in the rear of the building. The officers peeped out the door and observed appellant and one Miller enter appellant's room. Both men were empty handed. Some five minutes later the officers walked down the hallway to appellant's room and were about to knock when appellant opened the door. Officer Blankenship observed appellant was carrying a brown paper sack in his right hand in such manner that it could be disposed of rapidly. The officer testified that marijuana is usually carried in bulk in this kind of a sack but on two occasions, at least, he had observed it carried in a different fashion. The officer arrested appellant and seized the paper sack. It contained marijuana. The officers had neither a search warrant nor a warrant for appellant's arrest.

In People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 656, 290 P.2d 535, 537, it was held that 'reasonable cause to justify an arrest may consist of information obtained from others and is not limited to evidence that would be admissible at the trial on the issue of guilt.' In Willson v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 291, 294, 294 P.2d 36, 38, the court stated that 'Although information provided by an anonymous informer is relevant on the issue of reasonable cause, in the absence of some pressing emergency [citation], an arrest may not be based solely on such information [citations];' that 'evidence must be presented to the court that would justify the conclusion that reliance on the information was reasonable.' It was pointed out that 'In some cases the identity of, or past experience with, the informer may provide such evidence [citation], and in others it may be supplied by similar information from other sources or by the personal observations of the police.' 46 Cal.2d at pages 294, 295, 294 P.2d at page 38.

The question here presented is whether the information given by Bruce to the officers, coupled with their observation of appellant leaving his living quarters with a brown paper sack in his hand, was sufficient to constitute reasonable cause to believe that appellant was guilty of a felony.

It appears that the officers had not previously known Bruce or had any contact with him and that they did not know his reputation or any other fact which would assist in evaluating his reliability. In the absence of any emergency, 'an arrest may not be based solely on such information.' People v. Willson, supra. Were the observations of the police in this instance sufficient to supply this deficiency? The answer to this question lies in the significance to be attached to the fact that appellant was observed emerging from his living accommodations with a...