People v. Patrick
Citation | 135 Cal.App.3d 290,185 Cal.Rptr. 325 |
Decision Date | 24 August 1982 |
Docket Number | Cr. 39833 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Adrian Ulysses PATRICK, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
Hugh Peter Bavaro, Glendale, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward T. Fogel, Jr. and Richard L. Walker, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant was charged with violating Health and Safety Code section 11351, possession of cocaine for sale, and Health and Safety Code section 11377, possession of phencyclidine (PCP). After motions under Penal Code sections 995 and 1538.5 were denied, defendant entered a guilty plea to the Health and Safety Code section 11351 charge and the other count was dismissed.
At approximately 9:45 p. m. on October 18, 1980, two police officers drove up to 1240 California Street in Long Beach, stopped their car and exited it. At that location some 15 to 18 persons were in a gathering. The officers knew the area and location as one where many drug transactions had occurred. However, no criminal action was observed as the officers approached the group.
Officer Houser had been informed that defendant was a heavy dealer in cocaine. Officer Houser was acquainted with defendant and defendant with him. Defendant saw the officer approaching and at that time defendant had his right hand at the center of his belt. Defendant stared at the officer, then bolted from the group and Houser gave chase. Houser concluded that defendant was engaged in some type of criminal activity and was trying to flee contact with the officer. While Houser was chasing defendant and within a few feet of him, defendant threw two objects over the fence. About 50 feet from where he threw the objects, defendant was stopped and the objects retrieved. The objects retrieved included a PCP cigarette and a clear plastic baggie containing 12 rolled-up balloons of cocaine. The sole question raised on appeal is the admissibility in evidence of the narcotics discarded by defendant. Defendant argues that the evidence was obtained as a result of a threatened detention and is inadmissible. Assuming, arguendo, that defendant could not legally have been detained prior to his discard of the contraband, was the evidence sought to be suppressed (and which constitutes the foundation of the charges) arrived by exploitation of an illegal detention? The answer is in the negative.
We are confronted by opposing authorities, People v. Robinson (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 363, 129 Cal.Rptr. 915 and Restani v. Superior Court (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 189, 91 Cal.Rptr. 429, as against People v. Menifee (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 235, 160 Cal.Rptr. 682. In re Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888, 148 Cal.Rptr. 366, 582 P.2d 957 cites Restani, but expands the discussion of detention.
In Restani, supra, 13 Cal.App.3d at page 198, 91 Cal.Rptr. 429, the court held that "if the prosecution can establish that the primary illegality was not a sine qua non or indispensable cause of the discovery of the physical evidence ... the exclusionary rule does not apply." In Restani defendant was not under arrest during his detention and at no time was there any indication the officer was going to conduct a search. The court then concluded that the consent to search was not compelled and hence not contaminated with the illegal detention. In Menifee, supra, 100 Cal.App.3d at pages 238-240, 160 Cal.Rptr. 682, the court held that defendant abandoned the contraband (when the officer was about to overtake him) as a result of a threatened illegal detention. By this holding, we read Menifee as inferring that an illegal search would have inevitably followed the illegal detention. We cannot subscribe to that rationale.
In the instant case, when defendant decided he was about to be detained, he eliminated any question about an illegal search by openly disposing of the contraband (tossing it over the fence). The contraband was therefore not an indispensable product of a detention, but an abandonment, and was properly seized.
People v. Siegenthaler (1972) 7 Cal.3d 465, 469, 103 Cal.Rptr. 243, 499 P.2d 499 is supportive, for there defendant and his companions were observed at night in a high crime area. The police gave chase and observed the discard of the evidence. The court stated:
In the instant case the trial court necessarily found that there was no detention until after the defendant discarded the contraband. "Whether there was a threat of an illegal search capable of being carried out was a question of fact to be determined by the court in the light of all the circumstances." (People v. Stout (1967) 66 Cal.2d 184,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baraka H., In re
...1507, 273 Cal.Rptr. 317; People v. Nickleberry (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 63, 270 Cal.Rptr. 269, review den.; People v. Patrick (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 290, 185 Cal.Rptr. 325.) At the time of the officers' approach here, the bag was already out of appellant's apparent possession and control. By pl......
-
People v. Mendoza
...in plain view without police compulsion (People v. Sirhan (1972) 7 Cal.3d 710, 102 Cal.Rptr. 385, 497 P.2d 1121; People v. Patrick (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 290, 185 Cal.Rptr. 325). None of these situations is A shoulder bag reposing on the floor of an occupied residence hardly presents the ind......
-
People v. Washington
...lose the police "tail" (see, e.g., People v. Siegenthaler (1972) 7 Cal.3d 465, 103 Cal.Rptr. 243, 499 P.2d 499; People v. Patrick (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 290, 185 Cal.Rptr. 325), and police officers may be forced to run after individuals in order to maintain contact with them; however, the of......
-
State v. Bumpus
...a subject did not constitute detention. Id. 219 Cal.App.3d at 461, 268 Cal.Rptr. at 13; see also People v. Patrick, 135 Cal.App.3d 290, 185 Cal.Rptr. 325 (Cal.App. 2nd Dist.1982) (threat of detention does not constitute seizure). We agree with the California court that whatever vitality the......