People v. Rios, Cr. 5786

• Decision Date: 24 February 1956
• Docket Number: Cr. 5786
• Citation: 294 P.2d 39,46 Cal.2d 297
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Frederick Edward RIOS, Defendant and Respondent.

Page 39

294 P.2d 39

46 Cal.2d 297

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Frederick Edward RIOS, Defendant and Respondent.

Cr. 5786.

Supreme Court of California, In Bank.

Feb. 24, 1956.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., S. Ernest Roll, Dist. Atty., Jere J., Sullivan, Lewis Watnick and Fred N. Whichello, Deputy Dist. Atty., Los Angeles, for appellant.

Charles Chorna, Los Angeles, for respondent.

TRAYNOR, Justice.

By information defendant was charged with one court of possessing marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11500, a felony, and one prior conviction of violation the same section. His motion to set the information aside, see Penal Code § 995, was granted on the ground that all of the evidence of the crime other than admissions was obtained by an illegal search of his person in violation of his constitutional rights. The People appeal.

At the preliminary hearing Deputy Sheriff Henry of Los Angeles County testified that on May 27, 1955, he observed defendant sitting behind the wheel of an automobile parked across the sidewalk and obstructing pedestrian traffic. On approaching the car, Henry recognized defendant as a person he had arrested on March 17, 1955, on a narcotics charge. He spoke to defendant, who was wearing a short-sleeved shirt, and observed marks on his right arm that resembled the marks made by a hypodermic needle. He asked defendant if he was still using narcotics, and defendant stated that he had had his last 'fix' or injection of heroin approximately two weeks ago. Defendant then stated that 'I guess I have had it,' and Henry replied, 'Yes, you are busted now.' Henry then made a routine search for weapons and found a marijuana cigarette in defendant's right front trousers pocket. Defendant thereafter told Henry that he was using marijuana 'to kick the heroin addiction.'

Section 836, subdivision 3, of the Penal Code provides that an officer may make an arrest without a warrant 'When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.' The foregoing testimony of Deputy Sheriff Henry was sufficient to justify the magistrate in concluding that the defendant's arrest was lawful under this subdivision. From defendant's admission that he had taken an injection of heroin two weeks before it could be inferred that he had possessed heroin in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11500. Moreover, since the validity of an arrest does not depend on whether the defendant may in fact be found guilty of the offense for which he is arrested, Coverstone v. Davies, 38 Cal.2d 315, 319, 239 P.2d 876, and since in determining its validity the court is not limited to a consideration of evidence that would be admissible at the trial on the issue of guilt, People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 290 P.2d 535; People v. Gorg, 45 Cal.2d 776, 291 P.2d 469, it is immaterial that defendant could not be convicted of possessing heroin without out independent proof of the corpus delicti.

Section 841 of the Penal Code provides that ...