People v. Jones, Cr. 5127
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | GERALD BROWN |
| Citation | 106 Cal.Rptr. 749,30 Cal.App.3d 852 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Mary Louise JONES et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5127 |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1973 |
Page 749
v.
Mary Louise JONES et al., Defendants and Respondents.
Hearing Denied April 25, 1973.
Page 750
[30 Cal.App.3d 853] Edwin L. Miller, Jr., Dist. Atty., Terry J. Knoepp and Charles R. Hayes, Deputy Dist. Attys., for plaintiff and appellant.
Crobarger & Tessem and Roger C. Crobarger; Dougherty & Wolfe and Wallace E. Wolfe, Gerald S. Mendell, San Diego, for defendants and respondents.
GERALD BROWN, Presiding Justice.
The People appeal an order dismissing an indictment (Pen.Code § 1358), following the superior court's order suppressing evidence (Pen.Code § 1538.5).
A confidential informant told F.B.I. special agents that Mary Jones (defendant) was illegally bookmaking. In June 1971, upon application by an assistant United States attorney and a special agent, the United States District Court authorized a 20-day tap of Jones' telephone (United States Code, Title 18, Section 2510(7)). Twenty original tape recordings of monitored telephone conversations were given to the San Diego County District Attorney and were introduced into evidence in a grand jury proceeding. The grand jury indicted Jones and other defendants with conspiracy to commit bookmaking (Pen.Code §§ 337a, 182.1), and other related crimes. The court held the [30 Cal.App.3d 854] wiretap evidence was legally obtained under the United States statute, but suppressed it, reasoning the evidence is inadmissible in California under Penal Code section 631.
Penal Code section 631 states:
'Any person who . . . intentionally taps, or makes any unauthorized connection . . . with any telegraph or telephone wire . . . is punishable by a fine . . . or by imprisonment . . . or by both . . ..
'. . .rso
'Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial . . . proceeding.'
Penal Code section 633 qualifies section 631:
'Nothing in Section 631 . . . shall be construed as rendering inadmissible any evidence obtained by the abovenamed persons (law enforcement and police officers) . . . which they could lawfully overhear or record prior to the effective date of this chapter.'
Before Penal Code section 631 was enacted, old Penal Code section 640 prohibited wiretapping. Section 640 did not provide...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Upton, Crim. No. 80-00028-01-D.
...a higher standard than would a federal court dealing with interpretation of the federal wiretap statutes. Cf. California v. Jones, 30 Cal.App.3d 852, 106 Cal.Rptr. 749, appeal dismissed 3 18 U.S.C. § 2517(3) provides: Any person who has received, by any means authorized by this chapter, any......
-
U.S. v. Hall, 73-2826
...under California's § 631 and the evidence from it has been ruled inadmissible in California court proceedings. People v. Jones, 30 Cal.App.3d 852, 106 Cal.Rptr. 749 (1973), appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question, 414 U.S. 804, 94 S.Ct. 163, 38 L.Ed.2d 40 (1973); see Peopl......
-
U.S. v. Sotomayor, s. 1031
...would a federal court dealing with the interpretation of the federal wiretap statute, citing as its only authority California v. Jones, 30 Cal.App.3d 852, 106 Cal.Rptr. 749, Appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question, 414 U.S. 804, 94 S.Ct. 163, 38 L.Ed.2d 40 (1973). 10 In an......
-
Warden v. Kahn
...recording. (Cf. also People v. Superior Court (Young) (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 545, 548-549, 91 Cal.Rptr. 699; People v. Jones (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 852, 854-855, 106 Cal.Rptr. 749; People v. Carbonie (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 679, 685, 121 Cal.Rptr. 5 Contrary to the implication in the dissenting op......
-
State v. Williams, No. 46795
...proffered in state court, even when that evidence was gathered by [617 P.2d 1018] federal peace officers. 1 Accord, People v. Jones, 30 Cal.App.3d 852, 106 Cal.Rptr. 749 (1973), appeal dismissed 414 U.S. 804, 94 S.Ct. 163, 38 L.Ed.2d 40 (1973); but see People v. Fidler, 72 Ill.App.3d 924, 3......
-
Warden v. Kahn
...recording. (Cf. also People v. Superior Court (Young) (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 545, 548-549, 91 Cal.Rptr. 699; People v. Jones (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 852, 854-855, 106 Cal.Rptr. 749; People v. Carbonie (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 679, 685, 121 Cal.Rptr. 5 Contrary to the implication in the dissenting op......
-
People v. Windham, No. A111600.
...case that applied Trieber to exclude telephone recordings by law enforcement from evidence in a criminal case, People v. Jones (1973) 30 Cal. App.3d 852, 853-854, 106 Cal.Rptr. 749. Jones is easily distinguished by the fact that neither party to the telephone calls consented to the recordin......
-
State v. Minter
...proceeding. Other courts have reached the same result when interpreting similar language in their wiretap statutes. People v. Jones, 30 Cal.App.3d 852, 106 Cal.Rptr. 749, appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 804, 94 S.Ct. 163, 38 L.Ed.2d 40 (1973) (interpreting "any person" in state wiretap statute t......