People v. King, Cr. 16014
| Decision Date | 02 August 1977 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 16014 |
| Citation | 139 Cal.Rptr. 926,72 Cal.App.3d 346 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Danny Dale KING, Defendant and Appellant. |
Paul A. Roller, Pleasant Hill (court-appointed), for defendant and appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward P. O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert R. Granucci, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.
The sole issue of defendant King's appeal from an order of commitment entered on his plea of guilty to possession of heroin (Health & Saf.Code, § 11350) is whether the superior court erred in denying his Penal Code section 995 motion to set aside the charging information. The validity of the information depended upon the absence of a Fourth Amendment violation in the police seizure of certain heroin as will hereafter be discussed.
The appeal appears to be permitted by Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (m); the People make no contrary contention.
One afternoon a police officer, traveling in a police vehicle, saw King standing on the sidewalk with seven or eight other individuals, and looking in the direction of the police car. The officer proceeded in the direction of the group and as he did, King 'began walking away, away from (the) approaching vehicle.' The officer 'exited the vehicle and (again) observed Mr. King walking away.' The officer 'called out to him,' saying 'Danny, stop, I want to talk to you,' but King 'continued to walk away speeding up his walk as he did so.' King was then seen to place his hand in his pocket and upon pulling it out, make a throwing motion. Twenty-three toy balloons of different colors containing heroin were thus thrown to the ground. The officer, a trained narcotics specialist, knew such toy balloons to be a common method of packaging heroin, so he grabbed King 'to keep him from discarding any further objects.' Following King's arrest more heroin was found upon his person.
The officer additionally gave the following testimony:
We briefly state the function of this court on King's appeal. Where the superior court's conclusions on a Fourth Amendment issue turn upon issues of fact and credibility of witnesses we may not reweigh the evidence, or Draw inferences other than those reasonably drawn by the trial court. And where, as here, the trial court has found probable cause, we may set aside such a finding only if there is no substantial evidence tending to support it. (People v. West, 3 Cal.3d 595, 602, 91 Cal.Rptr. 385, 477 P.2d 409; People v. Wilkins, 27 Cal.App.3d 763, 770, 104 Cal.Rptr. 89; People v. Orr, 26 Cal.App.3d 849, 856--857, 103 Cal.Rptr. 266; People v. Harrison, 1 Cal.App.3d 115, 120, 81 Cal.Rptr. 396; People v. Ortiz, 210 Cal.App.2d 489, 497, 26 Cal.Rptr. 677.)
King argues only that the evidence sought to be suppressed by him was the product of unlawful police Detention. He appears to concede that, assuming the legitimacy of the claimed detention, the arrest and subsequent search of King and the use in evidence of the discarded toy balloons' contents were constitutionally proper.
There can be no doubt that a police officer in the performance of his duties shares the right of all persons to address another on the public streets, or at least that there is no constitutional proscription of his so doing. 'There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets.' (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 34, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1886, 20 L.Ed.2d 889; conc. opn. of Mr. Justice White.) And so long as his conduct does not constitute a 'detention,' a police officer may talk to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Flores
...108 Cal.Rptr. 852, 511 P.2d 1204; People v. Lawler (1973) 9 Cal.3d 156, 160, 107 Cal.Rptr. 13, 507 P.2d 621; People v. King (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 346, 349-350, 139 Cal.Rptr. 926), it is equally well established that where the facts bearing upon the validity of the challenged search and seizu......
-
State v. Twohig
...(officer approached defendant's car on a public street late at night and talked with defendant; no seizure); People v. King, 72 Cal.App.3d 346, 348, 139 Cal.Rptr. 926, 927 (1977) (officer Twohig generally and essentially substantiated Price's description of the roadside encounter and did no......
-
People v. Mayfield
...or attempting to detain defendant rather than merely attempting to initiate a consensual encounter. (See People v. King (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 346, 349-350, 139 Cal.Rptr. 926.) A detention Page 75 lawful "when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, considered in l......
-
People v. Diaz
...to exculpate the latter's involvement in present criminal activity associated with the use of the truck. (Cf. People v. King (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 346, 349, 139 Cal.Rptr. 926.) Such evidence reasonably supported the trial court's implicit finding which we must respect on appeal. (Id. at pp. ......
-
Search and seizure
...where officer approached pedestrian, whom he already knew, and called out, “Danny, stop, I want to talk to you.” People v. King (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 346. • Parking near pedestrian and shining spotlight on him, without exiting patrol vehicle or making any verbal request or command, not a det......
-
Table of cases
...People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, §4:16.8 People v. Kimbell (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 904, §§9:106.1, 9:106.2 People v. King (1977) 72 Cal.App.3d 346, §7:11.2 People v. King (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 882, §10:35.2 People v. Kirk (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 855, §4:17.2 People v. Kirk (1999) 74 Cal.App......