People v. Roland, Cr. 3747

• Citation: 183 Cal.App.2d 780,6 Cal.Rptr. 895
• Decision Date: 17 August 1960
• Docket Number: Cr. 3747
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Douglas Gilbert ROLAND, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 895

6 Cal.Rptr. 895

183 Cal.App.2d 780

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Douglas Gilbert ROLAND, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 3747.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California.

Aug. 17, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 8, 1960.

Frank M. Bowen, San Francisco, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BRAY, Presiding Justice.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction, after jury trial, of two violations of section 11500, Health and Safety Code: (1) unlawful possession, and (2) transportation of marijuana.

Questions Presented.

1. Was there reasonable cause for the arrest and search without a warrant?

2. Were the acts charged legally one inseparable act?

Evidence.

Except as affected by the determination of the above legal questions, defendant does not claim that the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction. An informant, one Baker, was confined in the San Mateo County jail on a charge filed by his wife. Baker informed Sheriff's Inspector Moran that his two cellmates had asked him to procure perjured witnesses on their behalf. Baker produced a letter from one of the cellmates addressed to the latter's girl friend, urging her to persuade Mrs. Baker to withdraw her charges so that Baker could be released and then obtain the desired perjured testimony. This letter corroborated Baker's statement that the cellmates wanted him to obtain perjured witnesses. Baker then advised the inspector that he knew certain persons who would sell him narcotics, and volunteered to obtain narcotics from them. Baker suggested that he be furnished a Spanish-type agent whom he would introduce to the narcotics seller as his brother-in-law, as Baker's wife was a Peruvian. Upon his release from the county jail the inspector instructed Baker to telephone the inspector when he found a suspect with narcotics so that the inspector could arrange for an undercover agent to make a 'buy.'

Between 7 and 8 a. m. on April 8 Baker met Crawford, Robinson ¹ in the Redwood City bus depot, having been told by one Meyers to meet Robinson there. Baker asked Robinson where he could buy narcotics. They took a bus to San Mateo and continued to discuss the purchase. At San Mateo Robinson took Baker to defendant's home. There Baker stated to defendant that he would like to buy five pounds of marijuana. Defendant said 'It could be set up * * *' Baker then told defendant that it was his brother-in-law who actually wished to make the purchase and that Baker would have to contact him. As there was no phone at defendant's house Baker returned to the bus depot where he called the inspector, telling the latter that a narcotics buy was set up, that $100 would be the price of the narcotics, and that the sale would take place at Baker's home at 8:30 a. m. Baker also told the inspector to contact 'you brother.' The inspector concluded that a 'buy' was arranged for which $100 was needed as well as a Spanish agent to be introduced as Baker's brother-in-law.

Baker and Robinson returned to defendant's home. They with defendant then left in defendant's automobile for Baker's home in Menlo Park, defendant driving. Baker sat in the front seat with him. Robinson sat in the rear. Five newspaper wrapped packages of marijuana covered with a piece of striped awning lay between defendant and Baker. Arriving at Baker's home, the three went inside bringing the narcotics with them. Since the 'brother-in-law' had not arrived, the three returned to the car, drove around and then returned. Defendant and Robinson remained in the car while Baker, pretending to find the buyer, went to a neighbor's house and again called the inspector.

In the meantime the inspector and Deputy Sheriff Olliffe had gone to meet State Narcotics Agent Ojeda (who was to act as the brother-in-law). They did not meet Ojeda. About 8:30 a. m. the inspector received a phone call from his office asking if he had 'a narcotics going' at 571 Hamilton (Baker's home), and was told that 'somebody is holding two parties at that address, and they have narcotics.'

The inspector proceeded to Baker's home, and parked across the street. As he crossed the street he observed defendant's car parked in front of the next house. Baker then returned from making the phone call. Defendant started driving away. Baker said, 'There they go, Bill. It is in the car.' The inspector followed in his car, stopping defendant within a few blocks. Defendant stepped out. The inspector searched him, finding three marijuana cigarettes in his shirt pocket. Defendant admitted they were marijuana. Defendant was then placed under arrest. The inspector found the five packages of marijuana wrapped in striped material lying on the seat.

On April 14, while defendant was out on bail, he contracted the inspector, saying that he would like to talk about the case. Defendant stated that the five packages found on the front seat of his car did belong to him; that they were made up in San Mateo from a kilo that he had purchased in San Francisco; that Robinson brought Baker down to make a sale of narcotics and that defendant brought the five packages out of his house and took them to Menlo Park to sell them to Baker's brother-in-law.

Baker's wife testified for the defense, to Baker's bad reputation for truth and honesty. Defendant did not take the stand. Robinson testified, claiming in substance that he only went along for the ride, although he admitted that defendant had agreed to supply marijuana to Baker.

1. Reasonable Cause for the Arrest.

'[R]easonable cause to justify an arrest may consist of information obtained from others and is not limited to evidence that would be admissible at the trial on the issue of guilt.' People v. Boyles, 1955, 45 Cal.2d 652, 656, 290 P.2d 535, 537. 'There are many cases holding that an arrest and search may be made solely on the basis of information received from a single reliable informant.' People v. Boyd, 1958, 162 Cal.App.2d 332, 334, 327 P.2d 913, 914. 'A reliable informant apparently means a person whose information has in the past led the police to valid suspects.' People v. Dewson, 1957, 150 Cal.App.2d 119, 128, 310 P.2d 162, 168. Reasonable cause to make an arrest without a warrant has been defined as such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest and strong suspicion, that the person is guilty. People v. Dewson, supra, 150 Cal.App.2d at page 127, 310 P.2d at page 167. The same test can be applied to the question of whether the informant upon whom the police officer in good faith relied, was a reliable informant. Did the officer have information concerning the informant that would lead an ordinarily prudent and careful person to believe that the information could be relied upon?

Examining the evidence...