People v. Sayles

• Decision Date: 10 April 1956
• Docket Number: Cr. 5549
• Citation: 295 P.2d 579,140 Cal.App.2d 657
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Dorsey SAYLES, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 579

295 P.2d 579

140 Cal.App.2d 657

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Dorsey SAYLES, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 5549.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

April 10, 1956.

Ellery E. Cuff, Public Defender, J. Stanley Brill and Noel B. Martin, Deputies Public Defender, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., James L. Mamakos, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

ASHBURN, Justice.

Appellant, convicted of possession of narcotics, § 11500, Health & Safety Code, appeals upon the theory that the only evidence against him was obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure. His counsel makes two points, (1) that a search without a warrant cannot be made where the police have had ample opportunity to procure a search warrant and have failed to do so, (2) that a lawful search cannot be made when § 844, Penal Code is violated--through forcible entry without 'having demanded admittance and explained the purpose for which admittance is desired.' Neither contention can be sustained.

Defendant did not testify. The evidence given by the police officers is without contradiction except in certain inconsequential particulars. The arrest and search occurred on April 15, 1955, at defendant's residence in Los Angeles. One of the arresting officers was Frank A. Mullens, who had known defendant for some time, having interrogated him two years before the instant arrest in the course of a narcotic investigation. At that time defendant said that he had been in jail for addiction and had just recently been released. The officer then observed that he had fresh needle marks on his arms, his eyes were definitely pin-pointed and not reacting to light, and he was under the influence of a narcotic. This information was relayed by Mullens to his fellow officers, Hill and Van Court, at the beginning of an investigation which led to defendant's arrest in April, 1955. This scrutiny of defendant's conduct started about the first of April. The officers had prior information that defendant was possessing and selling narcotics; they placed his home under surveillance at various times looking for entry or departure of users of narcotics; but they did not obtain information which they deemed adequate to support an arrest until the day it occurred. Early that morning a paid operator or informer advised officer Hill that defendant was not only selling narcotics but then had some in his possession. Hill testified: 'This particular operator that I have reference to now was a paid informant, and it was the operator's duty to find narcotic information and relay that information to us, and we in turn investigate it and see if there was anything that warrants further action or not.' Hill gave him $5 and told him to make a preliminary purchase. In an hour or so the informant reported to Hill that he had bought one capsule at defendant's house and that defendant was holding narcotics in his pocket. He presented the capsule to Hill, who identified the contents as heroin or some derivative and preserved the same as evidence. Hill, Mullens and Van Court soon met near defendant's home; Hill told them of the operator's report and production of the capsule. Without obtaining a search warrant they then went to the house, Hill and Van Court ot the front door and Mullens to the rear. Hill testified that the front door was open but the screen door was probably fastened; he saw a woman in the front room, said 'Police officers,' and entered forthwith. In doing so he pulled the eye of the fastener out of the door, thus effecting a forcible entry. He walked through the front room to the bedroom where defendant was standing near the bed, told him they were police officers and not to move. On top of a dresser next to the bed was a plastic bag containing a hypodermic outfit and syringe. Search of the person of defendant yielded from the pocket of the trousers he was wearing a rubber finger stall which contained 28 capsules, the contents of which were later identified by the police chemist as heroin and received in evidence. Further search of the house yielded nothing evidentiary. Defendant there made a full and voluntary confession of possession and use of the drug.

No claim is made that the information received from the particular informer could not be accepted by the officers as reliable (concerning which matter see Willson v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 291, 294 P.2d 36. ¹ The officers knew him, he was 'an operator working for us.' Given money for the purpose, he promptly made good upon his information, effected a purchase from defendant, reported that the sale was made at defendant's home and produced a capsule which officer Hill identified as heroin. With the background of known addiction on defendant's part, previous information 'that he was possibly selling narcotics,' knowledge of the persistence of addiction which has once fastened upon a victim (defendant), the officers had reasonable ground to believe that defendant was then committing the crime of possession of narcotics, and the trial judge was justified in so finding.

When entering the house officer Hill acted quickly in order to forestall destruction of evidence that he reasonably believed to be there. He testified: 'At the time I was--my main purpose was getting in there and getting to this particular defendant before he could get to the bathroom and flush whatever evidence he had down the toilet, which is quite common. We meet that quite often. By the time we get to the defendants they are usually near a bathroom and they go to a bathroom and flush in down the toilet.' He...