People v. Monreal

• Decision Date: 23 July 1968
• Docket Number: Cr. 14120
• Citation: 264 Cal.App.2d 263,70 Cal.Rptr. 256
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lewis Ignacio MONREAL, Defendant and Respondent.

Page 256

70 Cal.Rptr. 256

264 Cal.App.2d 263

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Lewis Ignacio MONREAL, Defendant and Respondent.

Cr. 14120.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

July 23, 1968.

Hank Di Roma, Venice, for respondent.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Evelle J. Younger, Dist Atty., Harry Wood, Chief, Appellate Division; Robert J. Lord, Deputy Dist. Atty., for appellant.

NUTTER, Associate Justice pro tem. ^*

Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana, in violation of section 11530 of the Health and Safety Code. Under section 995 of the Penal Code, he moved to dismiss the Information. The People appealed from the order granting defendant's motion and setting aside the Information.

Los Angeles Police Officer Barton was on duty on April 21, 1967, in a business area at about 10:30 p.m. It was raining. The officer observed the defendant, who was smoking a cigarette, step from his vehicle which was parked, walk to the rear of the vehicle, throw the cigarette onto the sidewalk, and open the trunk. He then opened a tool box, and removed a pair of gloves and a screwdriver. Because of numerous burglaries in this area and business establishments were closed, the officer thought defendant might be a burglary suspect. He approached defendant and asked him for his driver's license and questioned him concerning the ownership of the vehicle. Defendant produced his driver's license, and said that the vehicle belonged to him, but was registered to someone else in San Diego. The officer went to the driver's side of the car, shined his flashlight into the vehicle from the outside, saw no registration, and then opened the car door and put his head inside the car so he might be able to see if there was a registration on the sun visor or elsewhere in the vehicle. At this time he smelled a strong sweet odor which resembled marijuana. Suspecting a possible marijuana violation, the officer asked defendant if he had been smoking marijuana. The defendant denied this. The officer then checked the vehicle for possible marijuana but found none.

The officer then went to the curb where he had earlier observed the defendant throw the cigarette. He observed a partially smoked homemade cigarette lying on the cement. The sidewalk was clean where the cigarette was lying. He broke it open and noted that it contained a green leafy substance resembling marijuana.

Thereafter, the defendant was placed under arrest for possession of marijuana, and advised of his constitutional rights.

Later at Central Jail during booking, a plastic bag containing a green leafy substance fell from defendant's shorts.

The parties stipulated that the cigarette found on the sidewalk and plastic bag recovered at the booking both contained marijuana. Defendant is charged with but one count of possession of marijuana. We must determine whether the Information is supported by either the marijuana cigarette found at the scene or the marijuana found at the booking and whether either is the product or result of an unlawful search or arrest.

'A search of person lawfully arrested in the process of booking him is a reasonable search. (People v. Rogers, 241 Cal.App.2d 384, 388--390, 50 Cal.Rptr. 559; People v. Reed, 202 Cal.App.2d 575, 579-- 580, 20 Cal.Rptr. 911.)' (People v. Wohlleben, 261 A.C.A. 498 at 499, 67 Cal.Rptr. 826 at 828.)

However, respondent contends that the marijuana recovered at the booking resulted from and was the product of an unlawful search and arrest. He contends that the marijuana cigarette should be excluded because the officer smelled the marijuana as a result of an illegal search or entry into the vehicle.

We do not agree. Respondent's unusual conduct at the location in question plus his uncertain explanation concerning the ownership and registration of the vehicle justified further investigation by the officer. The officer's conduct in leaning into the car to check for the registration was proper and reasonable.

Section 2805 of the Vehicle Code provides that 'A member of the California Highway Patrol may inspect any vehicle * * * on a highway * * * for the purpose of locating stolen vehicles or investigating the title and registration thereof.' Prior to 1967, section 4454 of the Vehicle Code required that the vehicle registration card should be plainly visible and legible from outside the vehicle. In 1967, this provision was amended to provide that the registration card should be maintained 'with the vehicle.' Although this was an investigation by a Los Angeles Police Officer and not a California Highway Patrol Officer, the time, location and acts of the defendant plus the uncertain information given the officer by the defendant together with the fact that the officer did not see the registration slip, made the limited entry into the vehicle reasonable under the circumstances. (People v. Simons, 208 Cal.App.2d 83, 86--87, 25 Cal.Rptr. 57; People v. Anushevitz, 183 Cal.App.2d 752, 6 Cal.Rptr. 785.

Appellant's vagueness about the registration justified the invasion of the privacy of the vehicle for the purpose of checking the registration at the place where it is customarily located. When he opened the door the officer was not making an exploratory search of the vehicle. His search was limited to a cursory check of the registration at the time he smelled marijuana.

In People v. Grubb (1965) 63 Cal.2d 614, 618, 47 Cal.Rptr. 772, 408 P.2d 100, officers, at 10:30 p.m., found defendant's car without lights, parked on the wrong side of the road and protruding into the highway with no registration slip in sight. They entered the car to search for the registration slip and, while looking, found a billy which defendant, when apprehended, admitted was his. The court held the entry and investigation of title and registration under Vehicle Code section 2805 was justified by compelling reasons and exceptional circumstances.

In People v. Brajevich (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 438, 444, 344 P.2d 815, defendant's car was parked, and defendant was observed by officers walking, in a residential area, in the middle of the night. When approached he made a throwing motion. On interrogation he admitted prior felonies, first denied and then admitted ownership of the car, and made other inconsistent and unbelievable explanations of his presence and his car at the place. The officers then searched the car and found narcotics in quantity. The court held...