People v. Lawton, Cr. 5767

Decision Date24 April 1957
Docket NumberCr. 5767
Citation309 P.2d 862,150 Cal.App.2d 431
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Willie LAWTON, Defendant and Appellant.

Samuel C. McMorris, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Herschel T. Elkins, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

DORAN, Justice.

Defendant was charged with the violation of Section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code. A prior conviction which was also alleged, was admitted.

As recited in respondent's brief, 'On January 10, 1956, Harry Dorrell, a Los Angeles City Police Officer attached to Narcotic Division, in response to information received concerning the appellant, drove to a point from which he could view the area of appellant's automobile, a 1947 Cadillac. Officer Dorrell was aided in his observations by a pair of 7 X 50 binoculars. About noon on January 10, 1956 Officer Dorrell saw appellant, whom he had seen many times before, walk over to a small wall near his automobile, over which there was growing an ice plant. He saw him reach out and lift the plant where it hung on the wall. He then saw him reach beneath the ice plant with his right hand, and when he withdrew it, he saw him pat the ice plant on the top. Officer Dorrell continued his watch until 2 p.m. when he saw the appellant leave in the black Cadillac. He followed the Cadillac for a few blocks and then returned. Underneath the ice plant, where he had seen the appellant place his hand, Dorrell found a small package of tin foil. He opened it and found that it contained eight white paper bindles. He removed one bindle, marked it, and placed it in his wallet. He took the other seven bindles, put them back in the tin foil, sprinkled fluorescent powder on the bindles and on the package, and replaced the package in its original position. The powder Officer Dorrell sprinkled on the bindles and on the package contained a substance which would fluoresce when placed under an ultraviolet light. After replacing the package, Officer Dorrell washed his hands at a service station, called the police station, and returned to his vigil. At 5 p.m., Sgt. Trembly of the Los Angeles City Police Department, Narcotic Division, joined Officer Dorrell and together they watched the vicinity of the ice plant. Officer Dorrell pointed to the particular plant in question and Sgt. Trembly picked it up, exposing the tin foil package. Trembly did not touch it. Following this examination, Officer Dorrell and Sgt. Trembly went directly across the street and lay in the weeds. Officer Dorrell checked his hands with the ultraviolet light and found no traces of powder. At 9:15 p.m. the appellant returned, parked his car about 100 feet north of the ice plant and walked toward the plant. In the car at the time were Oscar Alcorn and Johnetta Mester. When sppellant reached the plant, he lifted it, reached beneath it with his left hand, stood up, and walked back toward his car. When appellant reached the driveway, Sgt. Trembly ran across the street yelling, 'Willie, you are under arrest.' Before either Sgt. Trembly or Officer Dorrell could reach him, the appellant made a strong motion with his left...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Jackson
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 29 Diciembre 1961
    ...Cal.App.2d 530, 533, 303 P.2d 1064 (driveway); People v. Bly, 191 A.C.A. 344, 349, 12 Cal.Rptr. 542 (trash can); People v. Lawton, 150 Cal.App.2d 431, 433-434, 309 P.2d 862 (back yard of adjacent house); People v. Hurst, 183 Cal.App.2d 379, 385-386, 6 Cal.Rptr. 483 (under the house). We the......
  • People v. Shields
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 9 Marzo 1965
    ...People v. Montes, 146 Cal.App.2d 530, 533, 303 P.2d 1064 (driveway); People v. Bly 12 Cal.Rptr. 542 (trash can); People v. Lawton, 150 Cal.App.2d 431, 433-434, 309 P.2d 862 (back yard of adjacent house); People v. Hurst, 183 Cal.App.2d 379, 385-386, 6 Cal.Rptr. 483 (under the house). We the......
  • Stamps v. State, 5017
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • 23 Mayo 1967
    ...v. Cisneros, 166 Cal.App.2d 100, 332 P.2d 376 (1958); People v. Spicer, 163 Cal.App.2d 678, 329 P.2d 917 (1958); People v. Lawton, 150 Cal.App.2d 431, 309 P.2d 862 (1957). The officers discovered the evidence in a public area where it was voluntarily thrown, hence there was no search. Looki......
  • People v. Sterling, Cr. 5900
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 14 Octubre 1957
    ...picked up that bindle. It thus appears that the officers did not obtain the bindles as a result of a search. In People v. Lawton, 150 Cal.App.2d 431, 309 P.2d 862, 864; 'There is no evidence of unlawful search and seizure for, as above noted, the officers recovered the so-called bindle in t......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT