People v. King

• Decision Date: 16 August 1971
• Docket Number: Cr. 14977
• Citation: 5 Cal.3d 458,96 Cal.Rptr. 464,487 P.2d 1032
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: , 487 P.2d 1032 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lavada Carole KING, Defendant and Appellant. In Bank

Page 464

96 Cal.Rptr. 464

5 Cal.3d 458, 487 P.2d 1032

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lavada Carole KING, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 14977.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

Aug. 16, 1971.

Albert D. Silverman, Canoga Park, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch and Evelle J. Younger, Attys. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and John H. Darlington, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

McCOMB, Justice.

Defendant was charged by information with having had in her possession for sale a restricted dangerous drug, in violation of section 11911 of the Health and Safety Code. After denial of her motion under section 1538.5 of the Penal Code to suppress certain evidence, she waived trial by jury and stipulated that the case be submitted on the transcript of the preliminary hearing and the testimony taken at the hearing on the motion under section 1538.5 of the Penal Code. She was found guilty of the lesser included offense of possession of dangerous drugs (Health & Saf.Code, § 11910) and appeals from the judgment of conviction (order granting probation).

Facts ¹: On the evening of January 28, 1969, Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff Carl F. Lambe was working the warrant detail in the East Los Angeles Station's detective bureau. About 6 p.m., he was given a photograph of Ernest Gifford, a suspect wanted for failure to pay a fine on a petty theft charge. The photograph, which was given to Deputy Lambe by Deputy Butts of the East Los Angeles Station's narcotics detail, contained a description of Gifford as being six feet tall and weighing 245 pounds. Deputy Butts told Deputy Lambe that a possible bench warrant was out for Gifford's arrest.

About 6:15 p.m., Deputy Butts told Deputy Lambe that Gifford was living with defendant at 7735 Walker Street, Apartment D. Cudahy. Deputy Butts also told Deputy Lambe that defendant had been selling dangerous drugs and that he had observed a sale of dangerous drugs by her at the above apartment. In addition, he told Deputy Lambe that he had information from a reliable informant that defendant kept a large amount of dangerous drugs under her bed in her bedroom and that she had made numerous sales to many people. Deputy Lambe had known Deputy Butts for several years.

About 11 p.m., Deputy Lambe verified from an operator in the central warrant files office that a felony warrant, issued by department 100, was out for Gifford and that he had prior felony arrests. Deputy Lambe and four other deputies thereafter proceeded to the apartment, arriving about 11:45 p.m. Five deputies were sent, in order to avoid complications on the arrest. ² After knocking on the apartment door, the deputies identified themselves. When Gifford opened the door, they arrested him. Since it was a chilly evening, they all went into the living room. (Admittedly, the entry into the living room and Gifford's arrest were lawful.)

Deputy Lambe then asked Gifford if defendant was in the apartment. Gifford said that she was. When asked where, he replied, 'In the rear bedroom.' Deputies Lambe and Barseck went to the rear bedroom, opened the closed door, and turned on the light. Defendant was lying on the bed under the covers. Deputy Lambe asked if she was Lavada King. She gave an affirmative answer and threw off the covers. The deputies observed that she was fully dressed in normal street clothes. Defendant continued to lie on the bed. Deputy Lambe then advised her that they had already arrested Gifford under a felony warrant and that they had certain information with respect to narcotic activities in her apartment and had been informed that she was involved in the activities and kept a large amount of dangerous drugs under the bed.

At this point, Deputy Williams, who had remained in the living room with Gifford, approached Deputy Lambe and informed him that a benzedrine tablet had been found in the living room. (The tablet was discovered by accident, when the deputy, at Gifford's request, opened a cardboard box on the table in the living room to locate Gifford's probation papers.) Deputy Lambe then directed defendant to remove herself from the bed; and, without having to move any bedding or clothing, he looked under the bed with his flashlight and saw a brown paper sack. The sack was open, and Deputy Lambe observed a small piece of cellophane sticking out of it. As a qualified expert on the packaging and use of benzedrine, he believed that the bag might contain dangerous drugs. He thereupon removed the bag and discovered that it contained 400 benzedrine tablets in plastic bags, 50 tablets to a bag. He then placed defendant under arrest and advised her of her constitutional rights. After stating that she did not desire an attorney before discussing the matter, defendant admitted selling the drugs for 'a little extra money.' She said that she took 50 to 100 tablets a day herself, and she gave other details. Questions: First. Did the deputies have probable cause to arrest defendant prior to looking under her bed?

Yes. Before looking under the bed, Deputy Lambe had the information given to him by Deputy Butts and also information that a benzedrine tablet had been found in the living room. These facts together clearly constituted probable cause to arrest. (See People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 412--414, 2 Cal.Rptr. 14, 348 P.2d 577.)

It is true that part of the information given to Deputy Lambe by Deputy Butts consisted of information from an undisclosed informant whose reliability had not been developed. However, the informant's information was merely secondary. Deputy Butts told Deputy Lambe that he himself--and his reliability was obvious--had actually seen defendant sell benzedrine in the apartment. As a result, reliability and the source of the information, with respect to what Deputy Butts reported he had witnessed, were shown. Furthermore, the information regarding Deputy Butts' having personally seen a sale of drugs by defendant may be considered as corroborative of the information given to Deputy Butts by the unidentified informant and relayed by Deputy Butts to Deputy Lambe. (See People v. Sandoval, 65 Cal.2d 303, 308--310, 54 Cal.Rptr. 123, 419 P.2d 187; People v. Marquez, 259 Cal.App.2d 593, 598--600, 66 Cal.Rptr. 615.) It should also be noted that defendant's furtive conduct in going to bed fully dressed in street clothes and pretending to be asleep constituted additional corroboration. Under the circumstances, this is not a case where an arrest was made on the basis of hearsay on hearsay, such as occurred in People v. Pease, 242 Cal.App.2d 442, 51 Cal.Rptr. 448.

The arrest having been lawfully made, the deputies could properly search under defendant's bed, such area, as will hereinafter appear, being within the permissible scope; and it is immaterial that the search preceded, rather than followed the arrest. (People v. Torres,56 Cal.2d 864, 866(1), 17 Cal.Rptr. 495, 366 P.2d 823; People v. Ingle,supra, 53 Cal.2d 407, 413(4), 2 Cal.Rptr. 14, 348 P.2d 577.)

Second. Was the scope of the search permissible?

Yes. This court has decided that the rule laid down in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685, limiting the scope of a search incident to an arrest, is applicable only prospectively. (In re Lara, 1 Cal.3d 486, 491, 82 Cal.Rptr. 628, 462 P.2d 380; People v. Edwards, 71 Cal.2d 1096, 1106--1110, 80 Cal.Rptr. 633, 458 P.2d 713.) Accordingly, since Chimel was decided June 23, 1969, and the search in the present case occurred prior to that time, the limitations imposed by Chimel are not here applicable.

Even under the restrictions therein imposed, however, the officers' search did not exceed the permissible scope. Thus, in Chimel it was said at page 763, 89 S.Ct. at page 2040: '(I)t is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and seize any evidence * * * (within) the area into which an arrestee might reach in order to grab * * * evidentiary items.' Clearly, when defendant was sitting on the bed, the area under it was within 'the area into which (she) might (have) reach(ed) in order to grab * * * evidentiary items.'

Third. Is defendant entitled to have the seized evidence suppressed on the ground that the deputies before breaking the door to her bedroom, failed to identify themselves and announce their purpose in entering?

No. Under section 844 of the Penal Code, an officer may, to make an arrest, break open the door of the house in which the person to be arrested is 'after having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.' Section 1531 of the Penal Code, relating to the execution of search warrants, authorizes the officer to break open any 'outer or inner door * * * of a house * * * to execute the warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance.'

In the present case, the deputies did not have a search warrant and did not enter defendant's bedroom for the purpose of arresting her. Deputy Lambe testified that he went to defendant's apartment to arrest Gifford and that he 'also planned on conducting a narcotics investigation if the opportunity presented itself.' However, the requirements for forcing entry to make an investigation should be no less stringent than they are where entry is made under a search warrant or for the purpose of arresting someone. ³

No contention is made that the deputies failed to observe the statutory notice requirements with respect to their entry through the front door to the apartment. It is clear, however, that they broke open the door to defendant's bedroom without having identified themselves or announced the purpose of their entry.

Defendant contends that the deputies had no right to break open the door to her bedroom without observing the statutory notice requirements even though they were legally in the apartment; that, as a result, their entry into her bedroom was illegal;...