People v. Ruhman
| Decision Date | 23 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 9143 |
| Citation | 224 Cal.App.2d 284,36 Cal.Rptr. 493 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. George Arthur RUHMAN, Defendant and Appellant. |
Gerald L. Rosen, Los Angeles, by appointment of the District Court of Appeal, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Herschel T. Elkins, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction entered against him following a nonjury trial wherein he was charged with petty theft following a prior felony conviction. (Penal Code, § 667.) He had suffered a prior conviction of the same charge. Four other prior felony convictions also were alleged and proved.
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in receiving into evidence the items of stolen property found in defendant's residence and his admissions relating thereto. The evidence supporting the judgment may be summarized as follows:
On the evening of January 21, 1963, Mrs. Coleman hung various items of freshly washed clothing upon a rack located in a carport adjacent to her residence. The following morning as she was leaving for work she discovered that all the clothing was missing. Before she had reported the loss, she was called to the Hollywood police station where she was able to identify the stolen items as her own.
Officer Baker of the Los Angeles Police Department testified that at approximately 3:50 a. m. on the morning of January 22, 1963, he and a fellow officer were patrolling the area to which they had been assigned by reason of a series of burglaries that had recently been committed in the vicinity. There was very little pedestrian or vehicular traffic in this six-or-eight-block radius at this hour; hence, it was somewhat unusual to see anyone driving around. The officers were proceeding south on Madison Avenue when they observed defendant's vehicle as it turned onto Madison Avenue from Burns Avenue headed in a northerly direction. Although their patrol car was unmarked, it had a red spotlight. As defendant had just completed his turn, and in a position from which he almost certainly saw the officers' car, he 'placed his vehicle in reverse gear, and at a high rate of speed backed down onto Burns Avenue again and proceeded westbound on Burns at a very high rate of speed.'
The officers immediately pursued defendant, signalling him to stop. When he finally came to a stop on North Vermont Avenue, the officers observed that he fitted the description of the party suspected of committing the recent burglaries in the area. He identified himself, and, in response to the officers' questions, stated that he had been arrested '[o]nce, for GTA.' The officers continued to interrogate defendant while seated in the police car awaiting a radio report they had requested concerning him. When received, the report indicated that 'he had done time for burglary and other felonies.'
In response to various inquiries, defendant stated that he lived in Glendale and was on his way home. When asked why he had chosen this particular route, he first stated that he had been driving on Hoover Street 'to get something to eat at Norm's.' When the officers asked him why he hadn't gone to a restaurant nearer than Norm's, defendant mentioned a Pearl's Cafe which he said was in the same area. Later he stated that he had been driving on Virgil or Vermont rather than Hoover.
In view of these several conflicting statements and his false statements regarding his criminal record, the officers asked him whether or not he had any weapons in his car. He answered in the negative. The officers then asked him if they might search his car and he answered affirmatively.
A search of the car disclosed, inter alia, a flashlight, a tool box with another's name on it that had been partially rubbed out, apparently with steel wool, and various other tools such as drills, hacksaws, vise grips and water pump grips. Defendant at first stated that he used these tools in his work as a carpenter. However, when the officers pointed out that these were metal working tools rather than carpentry tools, he stated that his carpentry tools were at his residence and that he used these tools to work on his car.
The officer also testified that there were fresh brass shavings on one of the pair of grips and that in the area recently there had been 'seven or eight what we'd call pipe wrench burglaries where this type of grip had been used to break the door handle of residences.' Finally, one of the hacksaws was 'brand new', the price still written on it; and for this defendant could not account.
On the basis of the recited circumstances, defendant was arrested on suspicion of burglary. His contention that this arrest was not based upon probable cause manifestly is without merit.
Penal Code section 836 states: As stated in People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 412-413, 2 Cal.Rptr. 14, 17, 348 P.2d 577, 580, cert. den., 364 U.S. 841, 81 S.Ct. 79, 5 L.Ed.2d 65:
In the instant case, defendant's evasive and irregular tactics, when he came upon the officers' vehicle at an unusual time and location, clearly gave the officers reasonable grounds to pursue and halt him for investigative purposes. (People v. Mickelson, 29 Cal.2d 448, 454, 30 Cal.Rptr. 18, 380 P.2d 658.) In addition, unlike the Mickelson case, the evidence here discloses that defendant not only consented to a search of his car, but, in addition, his false and inconsistent statements regarding his criminal record and his activities in the area might well have been sufficient to warrant a search thereof even in the absence of consent. The discovery of the various items found therein, combined with his further inconsistent explanations thereof, gave the officers ample grounds for suspecting him to have been guilty of criminal conduct and placing him under arrest.
Following his arrest, defendant was questioned further by Officer Yandle, a detective assigned to the burglary detail. This officer testified that, in discussing the actions of defendant which had led to his arrest, defendant was asked if he had any property in his home that he 'might be afraid for us to look at.' Defendant stated that he did not. He was then asked, 'Would you mind if we went over to your residence and looked through it?' The defendant replied, 'No.'
A search of defendant's residence disclosed the items of stolen clothing that form the basis for the present action and they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Machel
...of parked car in early morning); People v. Randal (1964) 226 A.C.A. 165, 37 Cal.Rptr. 809 (motorist at night); People v. Ruhman (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 284, 36 Cal.Rptr. 493 (motorist at night); People v. Cowman, supra, 223 Cal.App.2d 109, 35 Cal.Rptr. 528 (motorist at night); People v. Lovio......
-
People v. Perillo
...the evidence is lack of voluntary consent. (People v. Mersino, 237 Cal.App.2d 265, 46 Cal.Rptr. 821, cert. denied; People v. Ruhman, 224 Cal.App.2d 284, 36 Cal.Rptr. 493 hearing denied; People v. Jackson, 191 Cal.App.2d 296, 12 Cal.Rptr. 748, hearing denied.) The trial court's ruling that t......
-
People v. Jackson
...irregular tactics may give the police reasonable grounds to pursue and halt him for investigative purposes. (People v. Ruhman, 224 Cal.App.2d 284, at p. 287, 36 Cal.Rptr. 493.) Therefore, the detention of respondent for investigation was proper. As an incident to the detention, Sergeant Ste......
-
People v. Mersino
...could have obtained a search warrant and that such fact might affect the validity of the consent given, citing People v. Ruhman, 224 Cal.App.2d 284, 36 Cal.Rptr. 493. On the basis of information given by the girl who had testified about the objects seized in the search, a warrant might perh......