People v. Panfili
| Citation | 194 Cal.Rptr. 1,145 Cal.App.3d 387 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Decision Date | 04 May 1983 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Albert Milton PANFILI and Anthony Vincent Drago, Defendants and Appellants. A018363. |
Catalina Lozano, El Cerrito, for defendant and appellant panfili.
James E. Allen, Jr., El Cerrito, for defendant and appellant Drago.
John K. Van De Kamp, Atty. Gen., of the State of Cal., Daniel J. Kremer, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Criminal Div., William D. Stein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ronald E. Niver, Richard G. Tullis, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff and respondent.
On May 26, 1982, appellants Albert Milton Panfili and Anthony Vincent Drago each pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery (Pen.Code, § 211) and use of a firearm (Pen.Code, §§ 12022.5, 12022, subd. (a)). Each was sentenced to state prison. The guilty pleas were entered after appellants' motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 was denied, and the People's motion under Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (j), to overturn the magistrate's order suppressing evidence was granted.
On October 4, 1981, the Stop 'N Go Market in Concord was robbed. The cashier identified appellant Panfili as the man who held him up at gunpoint and escaped with $45 to $50. A passerby observed a man run out and get into what appeared to be a brown Pontiac Catalina. The car, driven by another, sped off.
Later the same evening, a Pleasant Hill 7-11 store was robbed. Appellant Drago was positively identified by a store employee as the robber. Another 7-11 store, in Concord, was robbed two days later. Appellant Panfili was again identified as the perpetrator of the crime. The employee making the identification had given the robber a number of marked bills, including a one dollar silver certificate with penholes in it. An approaching customer observed the robbery in progress, and memorized the license plate number of the car in which the robber escaped. The customer identified appellant Drago as the driver.
Within hours, police spotted a brown Pontiac Catalina with the reported license number parked approximately five miles from the most recent robbery. A registration check revealed that the car had recently been sold to an unnamed Concord resident, who was planning to leave the area. An officer entered the car, in which keys, clothing, cash and a wallet were in plain view, in order to obtain identification of the current owner. Appellant Panfili's driver's license and other identification were found in the wallet, on the dashboard; a new bill of sale indicating that the car had been sold to appellant Drago was also found.
Later the same day, the Concord Police Department received information concerning the whereabouts of appellants. The Chico Police Department was immediately contacted, and appellants were arrested in Chico that evening. The Chico force was instructed to set aside the personal property of appellants, so that the Concord investigating officer could look for specific marked bills. One of the bills discussed was found by the arresting officer in Chico, among appellant Panfili's personal effects. Another was found in appellant Drago's wallet, after transfer to the Concord jail.
Appellants were charged by information with all three armed robberies. Both pleaded guilty to the two Concord hold-ups.
Appellants contend that the warrantless search of the Pontiac Catalina and of the wallet found on its dashboard was illegal. They urge that the fruits of that search, the identity of appellants, must therefore be suppressed. They conclude that their convictions should be reversed.
Appellants disagree with the findings of the trial judge who, after considering the entire case record and the applicable law, ruled
A warrantless vehicle search is permissible, provided (1) exigent circumstances exist, rendering the obtaining of a search warrant impossible or impracticable, and (2) there is probable cause for the search. (People v. Johnson (1981) 30 Cal.3d 444, 450, 179 Cal.Rptr. 209, 637 P.2d 676; Wimberly v. Superior Court (1976) 16 Cal.3d 557, 563, 128 Cal.Rptr. 641, 547 P.2d 417; People v. Dumas (1973) 9 Cal.3d 871, 884, 109 Cal.Rptr. 304, 512 P.2d 1208.) We believe that the trial court was correct in concluding that these conditions were met and the warrantless search thus justified. However, this court need not reach that conclusion to uphold the court's ruling. For where, as here, the only evidence obtained through the challenged search related to the identity of the suspects, and independent sources of identification exist, no reversible error can be found. (People v. Teresinski (1982) 30 Cal.3d 822, 180 Cal.Rptr. 617, 640 P.2d 753.)
In Teresinski, supra, 30 Cal.3d 822, 180 Cal.Rptr. 617, 640 P.2d 753, mug shots of the defendant taken after an illegal detention were shown to a robbery victim. The victim identified the defendant, but his preliminary hearing testimony was suppressed by the trial court as the product of illegally obtained evidence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that "a victim's identification testimony is admissible if based upon his independent recollection untainted by illegal police conduct." (Teresinski, supra, at p. 827, 180 Cal.Rptr. 617, 640 P.2d 753.) Because the victim could identify the robber by sight, without relying on any information gathered through illegal activity, the identification testimony was not derived from a violation of defendants' constitutional rights. (Id., at p. 839, 180 Cal.Rptr. 617, 640 P.2d 753.) The testimony, therefore, could not be suppressed. This was true even though the police had no grounds to suspect this particular person of the robbery, prior to their illegal actions. (Id., at p. 835, 180 Cal.Rptr. 617, 640 P.2d 753.)
Similarly, suppression of the identity of these appellants cannot be justified. Full descriptions of the robbers and their vehicle were provided the police prior to the car search. These eyewitnesses were capable of identifying appellants, without relying on any information gathered by the police. As no more than the names and addresses of appellants was seized from the car, no suppressible evidence is here involved. For the identity of criminal suspects will not be suppressed, even if the trail leading to them was marked by illegally seized evidence, where witnesses can make a positive identification based upon independent memory. (Teresinski, supra, 30 Cal.3d at p. 835, 180 Cal.Rptr. 617, 640 P.2d 753; see also United States v. Crews (1980) 445 U.S. 463, 100 S.Ct. 1244, 63 L.Ed.2d 537.) The trial court properly overturned the magistrate's suppression order, regardless of the legality of the automobile search.
Appellants each contend that their personal effects were searched illegally, after the booking procedure had been completed. Appellant Drago challenges the search made of his wallet after being transported from Chico to Concord, at which time the one dollar silver certificate taken during the October 6th 7-11 robbery was discovered. Appellant Panfili argues that the search of his personal effects made after booking in Chico, which revealed his possession of "bait" money from one robbery, was an unjustified infringement upon his right of privacy.
It is well settled that a person being processed for incarceration may be searched. The recognized purposes of such a search are "to maintain jail security, to discover...
To continue reading
Request your trial