People v. James

• Decision Date: 12 November 1969
• Docket Number: Cr. 7808
• Citation: 1 Cal.App.3d 645,81 Cal.Rptr. 845
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ronald Eugene JAMES, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 845

81 Cal.Rptr. 845

1 Cal.App.3d 645

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Ronald Eugene JAMES, Defendant and Respondent.

Cr. 7808.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, California.

Nov. 12, 1969.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen. of the State of California, Michael J. Phelan, William D. Stein, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for appellant.

Paul Ligda, Public Defender, County of Solano, Jack McKibban, Deputy Public Defender, Fairfield, for respondent.

CALDECOTT, Associate Justice.

Respondent Ronald James was charged with violating Health and Safety Code sections 11911 and 11912, and Penal Code section 4574. The respondent's motion to set aside the information under Penal Code section 995 was granted. The People appeal from this order.

Officer Dalby, of the California Highway Patrol, stopped the car driven by the respondent for speeding, and at the time noticed it did not have a current registration tag on the rear license plate. The respondent was unable to produce a driver's license or any other identification for himself or the registration for the vehicle. Respondent stated the vehicle belonged to his cousin, but he did not know her name. She had married. The record is not clear whether this last information was obtained at the scene of the arrest or later at the police station. The passenger in the vehicle did not have any identification in his possession. While respondent was sitting in the police vehicle Officer Dalby again asked him for identification. The officer saw the respondent hit his pocket and heard a jingling. Officer Dalby then reached into respondent's pocket and took some pills from the pocket. The pills were contained in a prescription bottle labeled 'SOMA', and it bore respondent's name. The bottle contained Seconal, rather than 'Soma' which is a nonprescription sleeping compound.

At this time Officer Dalby searched the vehicle for registration and 'other storage information.' He testified that at this time he intended to impound the vehicle. However, he also testified that when he searched the vehicle he did not inventory the contents. The vehicle was inventoried and stored by another officer. Under the right front seat the officer found a large bottle containing 493 capsules of amphetamine.

On the morning of December 23, 1968 Officer Savage, a jailer at the Solano County Jail, received a pistol from an inmate. The inmate said that he received the pistol from another inmate, Joseph Gipson. After Gipson was advised of his rights he stated that he got the gun from a man named Ronald. Officer Mortensen of the California Highway Patrol, after again advising respondent of his Miranda rights, spoke with him concerning the pistol. Respondent said that he had taken the pistol from his home on the morning of his arrest and placed it in his waistband where it was not discovered during the search when he was booked. He said that he started to tell the officers about the gun a couple of times but did not do so because he was scared. Subsequently he gave it to Gipson in an attempt to get the pistol out of jail.

Appellant contends that (1) the court erred in dismissing counts 1 and 2 as the search of respondent and the vehicle was based on probable cause, and (2) the court erred in dismissing count 3 which charged possession of a firearm in jail.

I

The appellant contends that the search of the respondent and the vehicle he was driving was based on probable cause.

The police officer was justified in stopping the respondent for exceeding the speed limit and driving a vehicle without a visible current registration tag. (Veh. Code §§ 22351(b), 5204). Both parties agree that apprehension for a minor traffic violation will not support a subsequent search of either the person or the vehicle. (People v. Van Sanden, 267 A.C.A. 739, 741, 73 Cal.Rptr. 359; People v. Moray, 222 Cal.App.2d 743, 35 Cal.Rptr. 432.) However, because the respondent was unable to identify himself, the police officer could lawfully arrest him in order to take him before a magistrate as provided in Vehicle Code section 40302(a). As the arrest was lawful a search of the respondent was also lawful.

Thus the question presented is whether under the above facts a search of the vehicle was reasonable.

The law is clear that there must be compelling reasons and exceptional circumstances to justify a search of a vehicle in the absence of a search warrant. (Virgil v. Superior Court, 268 A.C.A. 133, 73 Cal.Rptr. 793.) '(T)he police could not search defendant's car simply on the basis of an arrest for a traffic violation * * * .' (People v. Upton, 257 Cal.App.2d 677, 682, 65 Cal.Rptr. 103, 107.) There must be an added factor to render the search reasonable. Where there is reasonable cause to suspect the driver is guilty of auto theft a search of the vehicle can be made. As to what constitutes reasonable grounds to suspect auto theft, in People v. Myles, 189 Cal.App.2d 42 at 46, 10 Cal.Rptr. 733, the defendant was unable to produce a driver's license or satisfactory proof of ownership of the vehicle. In People v. Nebbitt, 183 Cal.App.2d 452 at 457, 7 Cal.Rptr. 8, there were no license plates or any registration in evidence. In People v. Galceran, 178 Cal.App.2d 312, 2 Cal.Rptr. 901, there was no front license plate, registration was in the name of a person other than the driver, and the form of the registration was irregular. In People v. Odegard, 203 Cal.App.2d 427 at 431, 21 Cal.Rptr. 515, there was no driver's license, the proof of registration was unsatisfactory, no front license plate, and the rear plate was badly damaged.

In the present case the respondent did not have a driver's license or any identification in his possession. His passenger did not have a driver's license or identification. The vehicle did not have any evidence of registration and did not have a current registration tag on the rear license plate. The respondent stated the car was owned by his cousin but he didn't know her name because she had married. It is not clear...