People v. Medina

• Citation: 7 Cal.3d 30,101 Cal.Rptr. 521,496 P.2d 433
• Decision Date: 04 May 1972
• Docket Number: Cr. 15576
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Parties: , 496 P.2d 433 The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Manuel Soto MEDINA, Defendant and Appellant. In Bank

Page 521

101 Cal.Rptr. 521

7 Cal.3d 30, 496 P.2d 433

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Manuel Soto MEDINA, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 15576.

Supreme Court of California,

In Bank.

May 4, 1972.

Howard E. Beckler, Hollywood, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch and Evelle J. Younger, Attys. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Robert F. Katz and Ronald S. Marks, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

McCOMB, Justice.

Defendant was charged with possession of heroin for sale in violation of section 11500.5, Health and Safety Code. He waived a jury trial and submitted the matter to the court on the transcripts of the preliminary hearing and of the hearing on his motion to suppress evidence made under section 1538.5 of the Penal Code. Motion for new trial on the ground that the evidence was procured by an unreasonable search was denied. The proceedings were then suspended and defendant was placed on probation. One condition was that he spend six months in the county jail.

The sole issue urged on appeal is that the search which followed the arrest exceeded permissible limits and that the fruits thereof were illegally obtained. An appeal may be taken from an order granting probation (Pen.Code, § 1237). The legality of the search may be reviewed on appeal (Pen.Code, § 1538.5(m)). The date of search was November 7, 1968, and legality must be scrutinized under Pre-Chimel standards. ¹

The facts leading to defendant's arrest are as follows. Officer Robert G. Miller, Los Angeles Police Department Narcotics Division, received information on June 26, 1968, from a named informer whose reliability had not previously been tested, that a Manuel Medina was dealing and selling heroin in 1/4 ounces. He placed the home of the informer under surveillance, saw defendant get out of a green and white Ford pickup in front of the house, saw him knock on the door and peek in the window, and, when no one opened the door, return to the pickup and drive off. Miller traced the ownership of the pickup to a Manuel Medina residing at 15814 Cobalt, Sylmar, Los Angeles County. He discovered that Manuel Medina had lived at that address for 14 years.

On July 18 another untested but named informer told Miller that Manuel Medina was selling heroin in 1/2 gram or dime bag balloons; that she had gone out with other persons 'to score' or purchase heroin from Medina; that in order to score they first had to place a phone call and would then usually meet in the parking lot behind Denny's restaurant in Sylmar next to the Golden State Freeway; that on several occasions she had observed defendant drive to this parking lot after such a telephone call; and that on one occasion she had seen 'his stash' in his truck at the parking lot and that there must have been 1000 dime balloons. This parking lot was about two blocks from the Cobalt Avenue home of defendant.

About 2 p.m. on November 7, 1968, Miller received information regarding defendant from a confidential, tested informant whose identity he refused to reveal on the ground that such disclosure might endanger the life and safety of the informant (Evid.Code, § 1042(c)). The trial court refused to grant defendant's motion for discovery of the identity of this informant after Miller testified as to his prior reliability. The informant gave Miller the address of defendant (15814 Cobalt), and described the green and white pickup. He told Miller that defendant was selling heroin from his home, that his wife knew of the sales, and that she did not involve herself in the sales. The informant told Miller that he had been at defendant's home four times in the past two weeks; that he had purchased heroin from defendant there; that usually another person went with him; that on occasion the informant remained outside in a vehicle parked at the curb rather than going to the door; that he had never seen defendant's stash but that it was around the house or garage; and that on those occasions defendant would leave his sight but would not leave the property when getting heroin.

Whether or not there was probable cause for either an arrest or search warrant at the time Miller received this information, he had a right and a duty to make an investigation. He immediately made preparations to place defendant's residence on Cobalt and the parking lot at Denny's Restaurant under surveillance. He and a fellow officer stationed themselves at a vantage point on the Golden State Freeway near an offramp watching the residence from behind the lifted hood of an automobile. Five officers were stationed in the parking lot. It was then 4:15 p.m.

A few minutes after Miller arrived he observed defendant pull into the driveway in his green and white pickup and park. The driveway led to an open garage set back toward the rear of the lot and separated from the house by lawn area. Defendant remained in the car while his wife came out of the house and walked over to the driver's door. She stood there talking to him for three or four minutes. Defendant then alighted and the two walked to the lawn area in front of the house. They stood within five or six feet of the street looking up and down the street for five to ten minutes. Then defendant walked back to the pickup while his wife remained on the lawn looking up and down the street.

Miller, watching through binoculars, saw defendant open the driver's door, reach in back of the seat, then close the door. He saw that defendant held in his right hand a white bag-type object which appeared to be rolled into a cylinder about five inches long and three to four inches in diameter. Defendant walked into the garage where he was out of Miller's view. He then returned to the front yard where he stood talking with his wife for about 30 seconds. Both then went into the house. Defendant had nothing in his hand when he returned from the garage to the yard and entered the house.

About five minutes later a vehicle drove very slowly by the address and parked approximately 40 feet away. Miller recognized the passenger as Robert (Lefty) Lopez a known narcotic user and dealer. He saw Lopez leave the car and go to the front door, saw defendant come out and walk with Lopez to the garage, both gesticulating with their hands as they went and apparently carrying on a conversation. They remained in the garage out of view about one minute. When they emerged Lopez had his right hand in a clenched position and it remained clenched until he left Miller's view. Defendant remained on the lawn. He was still standing there when the officers arrived about four minutes later. The time was then about 4:30 p.m.

By reason of his prior information and experience, Miller concluded, from his observation of defendant's movements and actions in the yard-garage area, that he had just witnessed a felony in the garage and that he had grounds for an immediate arrest and search without a warrant. He proceeded at once to the Cobalt address, stopping en route to alert the officers waiting at the parking lot, and several cars filled with officers descended upon the scene. The fact of the arrest must have been obvious to anyone in the house. Miller knew that defendant's wife was in the house but he had not verified whether there was anyone else in the house or on the premises. While they were still on the lawn defendant's adult daughter arrived in a car. There were reasonable grounds for believing that opportunity to search was fleeting and that the evidence in the garage might disappear while Miller sought an arrest warrant.

Medina was immediately placed under arrest without a warrant pursuant to Penal Code section 836, subdivision 3 (reasonable cause to believe the person to be arrested has committed a felony, whether or nor a felony has in fact been committed). He was immediately searched. No weapons, contraband, money or evidence were found on his person.

Search of the garage followed within 'maybe less than a minute' according to Miller's testimony. There were no vehicles inside the open garage. The storage area was clearly visible to anyone standing on the driveway outside the garage. Within immediate reach inside the garage entrance was a tin can on a wall brace on the west wall which contained four loose colored balloons on top of nuts and bolts. On a rear shelf was a knee-high boot containing a white cloth bag filled with 55 colored balloons. The balloons in the can and in the boot were each tied with a white string. Each contained a white powder. In Miller's expert opinion this substance was heroin. Chemical tests proved this to be true. Also found on a shelf was a can of lactose milk sugar powder, a substance which he knew was used for the purpose of cutting heroin. Numerous empty colored balloons were found. They found no money.

At the police station defendant voluntarily stated to Miller several times that the stuff was all his, that he knew he would get caught sooner or later, and that he was glad it was all over.

Issue: Was the search of Medina's garage under the circumstances a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights?

No. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and its counterpart article I, section 19 of the California Constitution, protect the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and prohibit the issuance of a warrant except on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized. The meaning of these words, and the evils which the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent, have had a long history of judicial construction. Problems arise in the application of these protections which have been perplexing at times not only to law enforcement officers but to the courts. The Supreme Court of the United States observed in Chimel (supra, 395 U.S. 752, 755, 89 S.Ct. 2034) that its decisions on...