People v. Muniz, Cr. 6667
| Decision Date | 07 August 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6667 |
| Citation | 172 Cal.App.2d 688,342 P.2d 53 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. George MUNIZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
Manuel Valenzuela and Julius Weled, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Jack E. Goertzen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of violating section 11500, Health and Safety Code (possession of heroin). Defendant's application for probation was denied and he was sentenced to the state prison.
On August 28, 1958, Officers Barber and Stephensen, of the Los Angeles Police Department Narcotic Division, received a telephone call from an informant that the defendant was going to make a delivery of heroin on the second floor of a hotel at 221 West 3d Street, Los Angeles. A description of the defendant was also furnished. As a result of this information, the officers went to this hotel at approximately noon and stationed themselves in a hallway restroom. They waited about thirty minutes and then saw the defendant in the hallway. As he approached the door to the restroom, the officers stepped out, and Barber said, 'Stand still, we're police officers.' Defendant backed away rapidly and Stephensen took hold of defendant's wrists, as his hands were in his pockets. Defendant was wearing a short sleeved shirt. Barber testified that as the defendant was backing away, he noticed discoloration and marks lying over the vein areas on the defendant's arms. Barber stated that as a result of experience and training in the narcotic field, he was of the opinion that the marks he observed on the defendant's arms 'were caused by injections of a substance into the main veins of the arms similar to what' he had seen 'many times caused by narcotic heroin injection into the main veins.' At this point, Officer Stephensen said, 'You're under arrest.' In defendant's left hand he had a piece of pink tissue paper containing 51 capsules of heroin. Officer Barber declined to reveal the name of the informant, at which time defense counsel moved to strike all of Barber's testimony relating to the possible cause for making the arrest. The motion was overruled. Defense counsel asked Barber the following question: 'So then it is true, then, Officer, that the only reason you made the arrest of the defendant it you saw some marks on his arms as he was backing away from you, and then that caused you to suspect that he was on narcotics or had something to do with narcotics?' Barber answered, 'Yes.'
Defendant objected to the introduction into evidence of the heroin obtained from him at the time of his arrest on the ground that it was illegally obtained in that the officers had no search warrant and that the officers had no reasonable grounds upon which to believe a felony was being committed or that they saw a misdemeanor being committed. This objection was overruled. The defendant was found guilty.
As grounds for reversal, defendant argues 'that the court erred by admitting into evidence narcotic drugs which were the subject matter of an illegal search and seizure, the fruits of an unlawful arrest made without probable cause.'
Penal Code, section 836, provides in part:
'A peace officer * * * may, without a warrant, arrest a person;
Health and Safety Code, section 11721, makes it a misdemeanor for any person to use narcotics. From the appearance of the defendant's arms, the officers could reasonably conclude that he was then using narcotics in violation of section 11721, a misdemeanor; such would justify an arrest without a warrant.
In People v. Coleman, 134 Cal.App.2d 594, 599, 286 P.2d 582, 583, it is stated that 'a search without a warrant is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tyler
...can only conclude that the arrest was lawful. The search was made as an incident to a lawful arrest and was reasonable (People v. Muniz, 172 Cal.App.2d 688, 342 P.2d 53). The fact that the defendant was not arrested for any offense with reference to narcotics until after the search in room ......
-
People v. Lugo
...trial judge to determine the credibility of the witnesses. (People v. Williams, 174 Cal.App.2d 175, 183, 344 P.2d 45; People v. Muniz, 172 Cal.App.2d 688, 691, 342 P.2d 53; People v. Carr, 170 Cal.App.2d 181, 183, 186, 338 P.2d 479; People v. Diaz, 160 Cal.App.2d 123, 133, 324 P.2d The evid......
-
People v. Aguilar
...arrest, was reasonable, and was made in good faith. See, People v. Coleman, 134 Cal.App.2d 594, 599, 286 P.2d 582; People v. Muniz, 172 Cal.App.2d 688, 691, 342 P.2d 53. The fact that appellant was not arrested for any offense with reference to narcotics until after the search and the findi......
-
People v. Anderson
...evidence is conflicting is conclusive unless it shows as matter of law that there was no reasonable probable cause. (People v. Muniz, 172 Cal.App.2d 688, 691, 342 P.2d 53.) We hold that the ruling that the officers had reasonable cause for arrest and search is 1. Appellant's major contentio......