People v. Hale, Cr. 24910
| Decision Date | 20 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 24910 |
| Citation | 117 Cal.Rptr. 697,43 Cal.App.3d 353 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles Andrew HALE, Defendant and Appellant. |
Paul A. Doyle, Jr., Van Nuys, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen. Crim. Div., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Edward T. Fogel, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Charles Andrew Hale appeals the judgment (order granting probation) entered on his plea of guilty to possession of amphetamine. (Health & Saf.Code, § 11350.) Hale contends an illegal search of his automobile tainted the evidence on which his conviction was based.
The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, show that on the afternoon of 12 March 1973 Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Price, on patrol in San Dimas, stopped an automobile driven by Hale to warn him of a defective brake light. As Price approached the automobile he saw Hale's hand resting on the center console between the front bucket seats. An automatic pistol lay on the front seat only a few inches from Hale's hand. Fearing that Hale might use the pistol, Price drew his service revolver and ordered Hale to take his hand away from the pistol and get out of the automobile. He then gave Hale a pat-down search, which revealed no weapons. At about that time Deputy Sheriff Brown arrived on the scene and spoke with Hale, and Price understood Brown to say that Hale had previously been arrested for possession of a weapon. 1
While Brown detained Hale, Price entered Hale's automobile to examine the pistol, and in so doing he discovered the pistol lacked an ammunition clip. Inside the automobile Price saw a hunting knife with a six-inch blade wedged between the driver's seat and the center console, a bayonet with a 12-inch balade protruding beneath the seat, and a dagger-like letter opener above the sun visor. Suspecting that an ammunication clip might be readily available nearby for use with the pistol, and desiring to make certain the pistol could not be used as a weapon when he returned it, Price searched the immediate area of the front seat. Underneath the ashtray of the center console he found one .380 caliber cartridge of the type used in the pistol as well as a vial containing white doublescored tablets which Price recognized as 'mini-bennies' (the amphetamine that provided the basis for the prosecution). This is the search challenged here as illegal and unconstitutional.
On the facts of the case we conclude that Officer Price had reasonable cause to search the front seat of Hale's automobile and that consequently his discovery of contraband was an incident of a lawful search. The facts known to the officer at the time of the search gave him reasonable cause to suspect Hale was committing a crime, viz. unlicensed carrying of a firearm concealed in a vehicle (Pen.Code, § 12025 2). Only partial concealment of a firearm is required. (People v. Koehn,25 Cal.App.3d 799, 802, 102 Cal.Rptr. 102; People v. Tarkington, 273 Cal.App.2d 466, 469, 78 Cal.Rptr. 149; People v. Linden, 185 Cal.App.2d 752, 757, 8 Cal.Rptr. 640.) One portion of the automatic pistol, the housing and barrel, was visible, and it was reasonable for the officer to suspect concealment nearby of the remaining portion of the firearm, the automatic clip and ammunition. (See Green v. State, Okl.Cr., 489 P.2d 768.) A firearm disassembled into two or more parts, can nevertheless constitute an operable weapon within the meaning of the Dangerous Weapons Control Law. (People v. Ekberg, 94 Cal.App.2d 613, 616--617, 211 P.2d 316; see also, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Yarbrough
...order," and is "`prohibited as a means of preventing physical harm to persons other than the offender.' [Citation.]" (People v. Hale (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 353, 356 .)6 A person who carries a concealed firearm on his person or in a vehicle, "which permits him immediate access to the firearm b......
-
People v. Wade
...303, 314, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 674, citing People v. Hodges (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1357, 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 619, and People v. Hale (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 353, 356, 117 Cal.Rptr. 697.)California courts apply this broad legislative purpose in interpreting statutes regulating the possession of firea......
-
PERUTA v. County of San Diego
...Heller—carrying a concealed firearm presents a recognized "`threat to public order.'" (Def. MTD, at 3 (quoting People v. Hale, 43 Cal.App.3d 353, 356, 117 Cal. Rptr. 697 (1974)).)4 Plaintiff agrees that the constitutional right to "keep and bear arms" is not unlimited, and therefore concede......
-
People v. Ellison
...of preventing physical harm to persons other than the offender.’ ” ( Id. at p. 314, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 674, quoting People v. Hale (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 353, 356, 117 Cal.Rptr. 697.) Yarbrough noted that Heller “specifically expressed constitutional approval of the accepted statutory proscriptio......