People v. Ingle

• Decision Date: 19 January 1960
• Docket Number: Cr. 6564
• Citation: 348 P.2d 577,53 Cal.2d 407,2 Cal.Rptr. 14
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 348 P.2d 577 PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard Lee INGLE, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 14

2 Cal.Rptr. 14

53 Cal.2d 407, 348 P.2d 577

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard Lee INGLE, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 6564.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Jan. 19, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1960.

Robert H. Cornell, San Francisco, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., G. A. Strader, Doris H. Maier and Robert K. Puglia, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

WHITE, Justice.

Richard Lee Ingle and three codefendants were jointly charged with violations of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code following their arrest on January 22, 1958 in the City of Madera. One of the codefendants, Armando Garcia, pleaded guilty. The other defendants pleaded not guilty and were jointly tried before a jury, which returned verdicts against them. Ingle was convicted of the unlawful possession (count I) and the unlawfull selling, furnishing and giving away (count II) of a narcotic, to wit: marijuana, the sentences being ordered to run concurrently. This appeal is by Ingle alone. ¹

Ingle urges that his arrest and search were illegal because not based upon reasonable or probable cause and that the evidence produced by the search was therefore inadmissible; that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction; that he was prejudiced by remarks of the court to the jury; that he was deprived of his constitutional rights as to the assistance of counsel and the production of witnesses.

Ingle was arrested on the evening of January 22, 1958, at about 8:25 by officers Daulton and Jones of the Madera Police Department. He was sitting with Raymond Adame in a 1948 maroon colored Chevrolet club coupe which was parked in front of the premises at 915 Sonora Street, Madera. They were ordered out of the car by the officers, placed under arrest and searched. There was no warrant for their arrest. The circumstances leading to the arrest and search were these:

On the prior occasions in that month, namely on January 2, 15, and 17, purchases of marijuana cigarettes had been made by undercover agent Nicholson of the State Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement from Garcia. On the night of January 22 Nicholson again purchased marijuana cigarettes from Garcia. On each of these occasions the same general plan of operation was followed. Nicholson would obtain money from Inspector Shoemaker of the state bureau with which to make the purchases, he would then drive to Garcia's house, Garcia would come to Nicholson's car, the latter would give Garcia this money for the purpose of purchasing marijuana, Garcia would take the money and leave, returning in fifteen or twenty minutes. On his return he would hand marijuana cigarettes to Nicholson, always retaining one or two for himself as his 'commission' from Nicholson's purchase, stating that the person from whom he obtained the cigarettes always gave him a similar 'commission.' Garcia's car was a 1948 maroon colored Chevrolet. It is not disputed that the automobile in which Ingle and Adame were seated at the time of their arrest was that used by Garcia in these transactions. On the night of the 17th and again on the 22nd Inspector Shoemaker while keeping the Adame premises under observation, saw Garcia's car pull into the driveway in front of Adame's house, observed someone leave the Adame house and approach the car on the driver's side, and observed that shortly thereafter the car would leave. On the night of the 17th there were two separate trips made by Garcia to purchase cigarettes for Nicholson, and Garcia's Chevrolet was twice observed in the Adame driveway at those approximate times. The time during which Nicholson waited for Garcia to return coincided with the time required for him to make the trip to Adame's house and return. The cigarettes contained marijuana.

On the night of the 22nd Nicholson again met Garcia at the latter's premises and stated he wanted to buy marijuana, giving him an envelope containing $20 in currency. This money, consisting of two $5 and ten $1 bills, had been placed in this envelope by Inspector Shoemaker after the serial numbers thereon had been listed and each bill marked with green flourescent crayon and orange flourescent powder. At approximately 7 p. m. Garcia received this envelope and departed. He returned about 8:10 p. m. About 7:15 Garcia's car was seen pulling into Adame's driveway, someone approached the car and after a short delay the car left. When Garcia returned to Nicholson's car, he handed him 36 marijuana cigarettes, keeping 2 as his 'commission.' At that moment Nicholson signaled waiting police officers Dulton and Jones that the marijuana had been delivered. Garcia was immediately arrested. He had returned on foot, his car was not in the driveway, and the officers set out at once to look for it. A few minutes later they found it half a block away occupied by defendants Adame and Ingle, whom they immediately arrested.

At that moment the officers knew all of the facts just related. They knew that Adame was a peddler and user of marijuana. He was definitely implicated in the Nicholson purchases, and the presence of himself and his companion in the car at that particular time and place, under all of these circumstances, motivated the officers in making the arrest and search of both men, although they had no previous knowledge as to Ingle. They searched Adame first, finding in his possession 12 marijuana cigarettes, plus a partly smoked marijuana cigarette, and a coin purse with several $1 bills in it. The search of Ingle revealed two $5 and ten $1 bills, and, among other things, a key to Ingle's apartment located at 210 North C Street, Madera. Later search of this apartment, with the consent of Ingle's wife, revealed a large quantity of marijuana. Immediately following the arrest both Adame and Ingle were checked under an ultraviolet light and were found to have orange flourescent powder on their hands. Traces of the powder were also found on Ingle's wallet.

Reasonable or probable cause for an arrest has been the subject of much judicial scrutiny and decision. There is no exact formula for the determination of reasonableness. Each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances (Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 344, 357, 51 S.Ct. 153, 75 L.Ed. 374; People v. Washington, 163 Cal.App.2d 833, 844, 330 P.2d 67; People v. Ambrose, 155 Cal.App.2d 513, 521, 318 P.2d 181) and on the total atmosphere of the case. People v. Scott, 170 Cal.App.2d 446, 452, 339 P.2d 162; People v. Denne, 141 Cal.App.2d 499, 506-507, 297 P.2d 451, citing United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 63, 70 S.Ct. 430, 94 L.Ed. 653. Reasonable cause has been generally defined to be such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime. People v. Fischer, 49 Cal.2d 442, 446, 317 P.2d 967; People v. Kilvington, 104 Cal. 86, 92, 37 P. 799; People v. Silvestri, 150 Cal.App.2d 114, 117, 309 P.2d 871; People v. Soto, 144 Cal.App.2d 294, 298, 301 P.2d 45; People v. Smith, 141 Cal.App.2d 399, 402, 296 P.2d 913; People v. Rodriguez, 140 Cal.App.2d 865, 869, 296 P.2d 38. Probable cause has also been defined as having more evidence for than against; supported by evidence which inclines the mind to believe, but leaves some room for doubt. People v. Nagle, 25 Cal.2d 216, 222, 153 P.2d 344; People v. Novell, 54 Cal.App.2d 621, 623-624, 129 P.2d 453; Ex parte Heacock, 8 Cal.App. 420, 421, 97 P. 77. It is not limited to evidence that would be admissible at the trial on the issue of guilt. People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 656, 290 P.2d 535. The test is not whether the evidence upon which the officer acts in making the arrest is sufficient to convict but only whether the person should stand trial. People v. Fischer, supra, 49 Cal.2d 442, 446, 317 P.2d 967.

Where an arrest is lawful the search incident thereto is not unlawful merely because it precedes rather than follows the arrest. People v. Boyles, supra, 45 Cal.2d 652, 655, 290 P.2d 535; People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645, 648, 290 P.2d 531. Here the officers testified that the arrest preceded the search. The arrest is not sought to be justified by what the search produced.

There is no merit to the contention of Ingle that the sole ground for his arrest was the fact that he was sitting in an automobile with a known dope user and peddler. The situation presented differs from that in People v. Simon, supra, 45 Cal.2d 645, 290 P.2d 531, on which Ingle relies. It cannot justly be said that these officers arrested Ingle merely because he was sitting in an automobile at night with a known addict, or because the automobile was parked in a neighborhood where the narcotics trade was known to flourish. These arresting officers had just participated in the arrest of Garcia. They knew that a narcotics transaction had just taken place in which Garcia, Garcia's car, and Adame's house were directly implicated. They knew that contraband had just been transported in that car. They knew that Adame was not only a peddler but a user. They had reasonable grounds for inferring that the narcotics sold to Nicholson had been purchased from Adame or from someone with whom he was then working. This was not an arrest made merely in good faith but without probable cause. Good faith alone is not sufficient to justify an arrest without a warrant but, as the United States Supreme Court holds in the recent case of Henry v. United States, 80 S.Ct. 168, 171 'probable cause exists if the facts and circumstances known to the officer warrant a prudent man in believing that the offense has been committed.' The law looks only at the facts and circumstances presented to the officer at the time he is required to act (People v. Murphy, 173 Cal.App.2d 367, 343 P.2d 273; People v. Cantley, 163 Cal.App.2d 762, 765, 329 P.2d 993) though it does examine all of these facts in...