People v. Madden

• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Citation: 88 Cal.Rptr. 171,471 P.2d 971,2 Cal.3d 1017
• Decision Date: 05 August 1970
• Docket Number: Cr. 14452
• Parties: , 471 P.2d 971 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Narvell MADDEN, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 171

88 Cal.Rptr. 171 2 Cal.3d 1017, 471 P.2d 971 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Narvell MADDEN, Defendant and Appellant. Cr. 14452. Supreme Court of California,
In Bank. Aug. 5, 1970.

[2 Cal.3d 1019] Lauren M. Handley, Los Angeles, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Thomas E. Warriner, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

PETERS, Justice.

In a nonjury trial defendant was found guilty of possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf.Code, § 11530.5), possession of dangerous drugs (amphetamine) for sale (Health & Saf.Code, § 11911), and possession of firearms by a felon (defendant had a prior conviction for second-degree burglary) (Pen.Code, § 12021). The trial court sentenced defendant on the marijuana count and dismissed the remaining counts.

Defendant was arrested on July 18, 1967, at 343 East 98th Street in Los Angeles.

Officer Walker, of the narcotics division of the Los Angeles Police Department, testified as follows: About two months prior to the arrest of defendant, he had received information for Officer Stovall of the narcotics division of the Compton Police Department that defendant lived in the Compton area and was peddling narcotics from his residence there. A few days prior to the arrest, Officer Walker received information from Officer Stovall that defendant had moved to 343 East 98th

Page 172

[471 P.2d 972] Street and peddling narcotics from that address. Shortly after receiving that information, Officer Walker contacted 'a confidential reliable informant who has given me information in the past on several occasions that has resulted in arrests and convictions for narcotics,' and the informant confirmed Officer Stovall's information that defendant was living at the 98th Street address and was selling narcotics from that address. About 10 a.m. on the morning of the arrest, Officer Walker was informed by a superior officer, Lieutenant Hanks of the narcotics division of the Los Angeles Police Department, that defendant had a large quantity of narcotics at his residence at 343 East 98th Street and was peddling narcotics from this residence.

Officer Walker testified further: About 10:30 a.m. on the morning of the arrest, he and Sergeant Gouge arrived at the residence at 343 East 98th Street. Officer Walker knocked on the door of the residence, and the door was opened by defendant. Officer Walker identified himself and asked [2 Cal.3d 1020] defendant if he was Narvell Madden. Defendant replied in the affirmative, and the officer asked him whether he lived there. Defendant replied that he had lived there about two months, and he asked the officers to come into the house. The officers went into the house, and Officer Walker told defendant that they were there 'on a narcotic investigation' and asked him whether he was or had ever been involved in narcotics. Defendant replied in the negative, and Officer Walker asked him whether there were any narcotics in the house. Defendant again replied in the negative, and the officer said, 'Do you mind if we complete our investigation by searching your house for narcotics?' Defendant replied, 'No, go ahead and search.'

Marijuana, a pistol, and ammunition were found in the trunk of an abandoned car in defendant's back yard--which car was owned by defendant's ex-girl friend. Amphetamine tablets were found in a brown bag in a drawer next to the kitchen sink--right beneath a kitchen window that had been broken into about a month prior to the arrest. A very small amount of marijuana was found in the garage.

Defendant testified: Officer Walker knocked on his door, and when defendant opened the door, the officer asked him whether he was Narvell Madden. Defendant replied in the affirmative, and the officer 'stuck his foot in the door' and showed defendant some identification. The officer asked, 'who do you know that you did something to that wants to see you in jail?' Defendant replied, 'No, one.' The officer then told defendant, 'Well, we received several telephone calls that you have a large amount of narcotics around here,' and asked defendant whether any narcotics were there. Defendant said 'No.' The officer said, 'Well, we'll see,' walked right past defendant, and started searching in the kitchen. Defendant did not invite the officer into the house nor tell him to search the house. He at no time consented to a search of the premises.

Defendant unsuccessfully sought to explain the presence of the contraband on the theory that he and his former girl friend had quarreled and that she or a friend had 'planted' the contraband in an attempt to 'frame' him.

The trial court found that the defendant did not consent to the entry or the search, but that the officer had a right to enter and to search, that he had probable cause to believe that a felony was being committed, and that the unidentified informer was reliable.

However, we have concluded that the record fails to show that there was probable cause to arrest defendant prior to the search. The information[2 Cal.3d 1021] upon which Officer Walker relied for probable cause to arrest was information from two police officers and from a reliable informant that defendant was selling narcotics at his residence at 343 East 98th Street.

We held in People v. Lara, 67 Cal.2d 365, 374, 62 Cal.Rptr. 586, 432 P.2d 202,

Page 173

[471 P.2d 973] that, although an officer may make an arrest based on information received through 'official channels,' the prosecution is required to show that the officer who originally furnished the information had probable cause to believe that the suspect committed a felony. We reaffirmed this principle in the recent case of Remers v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 659, 666--667, 87 Cal.Rptr. 202, 206, 470 P.2d 11, 15, where we...