People v. Martinez, Cr. 16746

• Decision Date: 06 April 1970
• Docket Number: Cr. 16746
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Frank Robert MARTINEZ, John Barton Reed, Paul Vance Till, and Luigi Manfred Schroeder, Defendants and Respondents.

Page 49

86 Cal.Rptr. 49

6 Cal.App.3d 373

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Frank Robert MARTINEZ, John Barton Reed, Paul Vance Till, and Luigi Manfred Schroeder, Defendants and Respondents.

Cr. 16746.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 4, California.

April 6, 1970.

As Modified April 8, 1970.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Evelle J. Younger, Dist. Atty., Harry Wood, Chief, Appellate Division, Eugene D. Tavris, Deputy Dist. Atty., for plaintiff and appellant.

Richard S. Buckley, Public Defender of Los Angeles County, James L. McCormick, Dale C. Frailey and Lawrence R. Johnson, Deputy Public Defenders, for defendants and respondents.

JEFFERSON, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal by the People (under Penal Code, section 1238 subdivision 7), from an order of dismissal entered after evidence was suppressed under Penal Code, section 1538.5. For reasons to follow, we have concluded that the order of dismissal must be reversed.

On December 9, 1968, at about 5:15 p.m., Officer Sonntag and his partner were on routine patrol in a marked police vehicle when they turned onto Ardilla Street in a developed residential area of Valinda (an unincorporated area of Los Angeles County). It was then twilight and as they approached the vicinity of 329 Ardilla the headlights of the patrol unit hit on the cars parked along the street. Officer Sonntag observed that one of the parked cars had occupants in it. It was headed in the same direction they were headed. The vehicle was parked in front of 329 Ardilla. The houses in the vicinity were unlighted. As they drew nearer to the occupied vehicle their headlights lit up its interior and Sonntag observed that there were four men seated in it. Sonntag then observed that they all turned around and looked in the direction of the patrol car. There were looks of surprise and fear on their faces. One of the men then immediately turned back around and bent over. He appeared to be attempting to place something under the right front seat where he was sitting. Sonntag was aware that this was a high frequently burglary area and he decided to check out the suspicious conduct of the men.

The patrol car was stopped behind them and both officers alighted and approached the parked vehicle. Sonntag walked up on the passenger side while his partner took the other side. Sonntag looked through the window of the car and observed that defendant Schroeder was seated in the right front seat; defendant Martinez was in the driver's seat and defendants Till and Reed were in the back seat. Sonntag then, still looking through the window, looked down at the floorboard where he had observed Schroeder bending, and saw an open box containing a package of zigzag cigarette papers and what appeared to be marijuana debris. After making this observation defendants were ordered out of the car. As Schroeder and Martinez got out, Sonntag saw them both stuff objects into cuts in the upholstery of the seats. Sonntag retrieved the objects and found that what Schroeder had concealed was a Kool cigarette package containing what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes. Martinez had attempted to conceal two red capsules which appeared to contain seconal. Defendants were then placed under arrest.

All of the defendants were subsequently charged with possession of marijuana. Martinez was additionally charged with possession of seconal. The items found in the car were admitted in evidence at the preliminary hearing. It was stipulated that the items were determined to be marijuana and seconal as Sonntag had surmised. This was the evidence suppressed by the superior court after the section 1538.5 hearing. ¹

When it made its ruling on the motion to suppress, the court was asked whether it accepted the testimony of Officer Sonntag as the truth. The record reflects that the court made the following response: 'THE COURT: Absolutely. I am taking the officer's statement as the truth. This is not a question of fact; it is a question of law, so we have no problem with the facts whatsoever. I am granting the motion. I am granting it and I am stating the following: That I believe the officer who testified both in the transcript and on the stand, and I am finding this only as a matter of law. * * *'

The single issue presented in this appeal is whether the evidence establishes, as a matter of law, that the officers lacked justification to stop their patrol car and approach the parked car occupied by defendants to investigate what they believed was suspicious conduct on the part of defendants. We conclude that the facts establish that the officers' action was justified.

A police officer may, in the discharge of his duties, stop and question persons on public streets either in cars or on foot, when the circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man in a like position that such a course of action is called for in the proper discharge of those duties. (People v. One 1960 Cadillac Coupe, 62 Cal.2d 92, 95--96, 41 Cal.Rptr. 290, 396 P.2d 706; People v. Blackmon, 276 A.C.A. 428, 429--430, 80 Cal.Rptr. 862.) '(A)n officer of the law, employed to maintain the peace and to prevent crime, as well as to apprehend criminals after the fact, has both the right and the duty to make reasonable investigation of all suspicious activities even though the nature thereof may fall short of grounds sufficient to justify an arrest or a search of the persons or the effects of the suspects. Experienced police officers naturally develop an...