People v. Pressley

• Decision Date: 27 May 1966
• Docket Number: Cr. 11030
• Citation: 242 Cal.App.2d 555,51 Cal.Rptr. 563
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Roy Lee PRESSLEY, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 563

51 Cal.Rptr. 563

242 Cal.App.2d 555

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Roy Lee PRESSLEY, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 11030.

District Court of Appeal, Second District,

Division 4, California.

May 27, 1966.

Hearing Denied July 20, 1966.

Erling J. Hovden, Public Defender (Los Angeles County), Hayes Mead and James L. McCormick, Deputy Public Defenders, for defendant and appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Howard J. Bechefsky, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

KINGSLEY, Justice.

Defendant was charged with possession of marijuana in violation of section 11530 of the Health and Safety Code. A motion to dismiss under section 995 of the Penal Code was made and denied; a motion to suppress evidence allegedly illegally obtained was denied; trial by jury was duly waived and the case was submitted on the transcript of the preliminary examination, neither party offering any additional evidence. He was found guilty as charged, a motion for new trial was made and denied, probation was denied, and he was sentenced to state prison. He has appealed.

It is not contended that the evidence, if legally and properly admitted, was insufficient to support the conviction. The sole point here urged is that the evidence against defendant was the result of an illegal arrest and an illegal search. This contention was timely raised before the magistrate and, as above indicated, approximately pursued throughout the trial court proceedings.

Some ten or fifteen times during a six week period prior to January 4, 1965, Officer Brown of the narcotic squad of the Los Angeles Police Department was called on the telephone by a woman who identified herself as 'Mrs. Roberts,' and who claimed to be the grandmother of a person named Tommy Monahan. The subject matter of all of these calls was that the grandson was using marijuana and 'pills' and that he was 'running around' with two other persons named Bobby Ray and Roy Pressley. She described Pressley as being taller than Ray but shorter than Monahan. During one call, this woman, in response to a question from Officer Brown, siad that she knew her grandson was using narcotics because she had found cigarettes in his possession which he had admitted to her were marijuana and that he had admitted using marijuana and pills. No written record was made of these calls, the officer made no attempt to contact the caller in person, he did not secure either a phone number or an address for her, and no other effort was made to investigate or corroborate the caller's story.

About 8:30 a.m., on January 4, 1965, the same woman again phoned Officer Brown. On this occasion she told him that the grandson was with Ray and Pressley at an address which she gave; she also gave 'a description' of Ray's automobile 'and other information.' ¹ The officer asked how the caller knew Pressley's address and she responded that, about a week before, she had gone to that address to get her grandson who had 'passed out' and that, on the occasion of that visit, she had seen marijuana cigarettes on the table.

At about 2:00 p.m., on January 4th, Officer Brown, accompanied by Officer Shaw and Sergeant King, went to the vicinity of the address given, which was a second floor apartment. They observed Pressley and two other persons (later identified as Ray and Monahan) enter the apartment, using defendant's keys. ² About 40 minutes later, Ray and Monahan left, entered a car later identified as Ray's and drove off. ³ The officers followed the car for about 8 blocks, identified themselves, and pulled it over. During a 'conversation,' the officers noticed a small pipe on the front seat 'with the odor of marijuana in it' and, on the floor, 'a few seeds.' ⁴

After the officers 'had the conversation with them (presumably Ray and Monahan) regarding the actions,' ⁵ the officers returned to Pressley's apartment, arriving at about 3:05 p.m. As they approached the door, Pressley walked out. The subsequent events were described by Officer Brown as follows:

'He looked around over his right shoulder and I observed his head move in the direction of the Officer, Officer Shaw and myself, and he immediately started to run. She (sic) ran approximately five feet and then he jumped off the balcony.

'Before he jumped off the balcony I hollered, 'Police Officers don't do it you will hurt yourself,' and he continued his jump. At this time I ran to the back of the stairs to block the rear entrance as Mr. King was in the front and Mr. Shaw hung over the rail and dropped to the ground.

'At this time when I got to the bottom of the stairs the defendant was running Westbound and Mr. Shaw was immediately in back of him running at a high rate of speed. Mr. Shaw stopped him as he got to the sidewalk which was approximately one hundred feet.

'We then identified ourselves again and asked him why he ran. He said, 'I knew you were cop's (sic) and I was just running.'

'I asked him if he wanted to go back up to the apartment and he stated yes. I asked him if he had anything in the apartment he should not have and he stated no. I asked him if I could search it and he stated yes.

'He was in handcuffs at this time. Sergeant King had placed handcuffs on him and when we got to the top of the stairs he was attempting to get the apartment key from his pocket with handcuffs on and he was having a difficult time, so I asked him if I could get the key and he said yes. I removed the key, opened the door and we entered.

'We sat him down in front and Sergeant King gave him his rights regarding an attorney to be present, he could remain silent, anything he stated would be used against him.'

A search of the apartment followed, resulting in the discovery of a substantial quantity of marijuana. Pressley was then taken to a hospital for treatment of a broken ankle, sustained in the jump. After his treatment, under interrogation, Pressley admitted ownership of the marijuana. ⁶

We conclude that the search of the apartment was lawful and the evidence thereby obtained lawfully admitted. Since the only objection to the use of defendant's hospital confession was that it was a fruit of the earlier arrest and search, that evidence was also admissible.

I

Although the telephone caller can scarcely be regarded as a 'reliable' informant, her information, taken in its totality, certainly was enough to authorize the officers to go to the address given and to investigate activities there. On arriving at the apartment, the officers observed three persons who fitted the description previously given of the three men allegedly involved. Although that description was hardly enough to justify immediate arrest, the presence, at the address given, of three men--no more, nor less--of the respective heights given the officers, again justified the action in pursuing two of them for questioning. That investigatory step disclosed evidence of recent marijuana usage. By this time, we think the officers had enough grounds to arrest the occupant of the apartment. While the caller stood somewhere between the...