People v. Schellin

Decision Date15 May 1964
Docket NumberCr. 4420
Citation38 Cal.Rptr. 593,227 Cal.App.2d 245
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Clifford Kenneth SCHELLIN, Defendant and Appellant.

Hall & Buchignani, Alvin G. Buchignani, Alfred C. Cavagnaro, San Francisco, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., of the State of California, Albert W. Harris, Jr., Michael J. Phelan, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.

TAYLOR, Justice.

This is an appeal from a denial of defendant's motion for a new trial and from a judgment of conviction rendered on a jury verdict finding the appellant, C. K. Schellin, guilty of burglary. The sole contention is that certain evidence was erroneously admitted as it was secured by an unlawful search and seizure.

As no questions are raised concerning the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment, a brief summary of the facts concerning the offense will suffice. Appellant and his codefendant Hawvichorst were found guilty of two burglaries in Napa County; the first occurred on March 8, 1963, at Levinson's Drug Store in the City of Napa; the second, on March 15, 1963, at The Grapevine Inn on the St. Helena Highway north of Yountville. Both were arrested in Napa on March 15, in Hawvichorst's car which contained a number of items stolen from The Grapevine Inn and some of the tools used in the drug store burglary. An accomplice, one Vierra, testified for the prosecution about their participation in the drug store burglary. Hawvichorst denied the drug store burglary but admitted The Grapevine Inn burglary. Hawvichorst testified that on March 14, he and the appellant had been drinking together all day and went for a ride about 8:30 or 9:00 p. m. Appellant's defense was based on Hawvichorst's testimony that he had committed The Grapevine Inn burglary alone while the appellant remained in the car, unconscious from an asthma attack.

We now turn to the facts concerning the arrest of the appellant and Hawvichorst and the search in question. On March 15, 1963, about 2:30 a. m., Sgt. Meyer, the deputy sheriff in charge of the investigation detail in Napa County, received a call from his office at his home. The Napa sheriff's office had been advised by Sgt. Dahl of the Intelligence Unit of the Oakland Police Department that they had observed a vehicle with known burglary suspects going north on the freeway on the evening of March 14. The information supplied by the Oakland police was that two or three male subjects in a 1960 Nash Rambler were intent on burglarizing a place that contained a safe on the highway north of Napa. The license number of the vehicle was given.

Sgt. Meyer immediately got dressed and drove his car north on the St. Helena Highway to Rutherford. Since he did not observe anything unusual, he turned around, returned to the Thomas Garage, parked and radioed for the night patrol. It was then about 3:15 or 3:30 a. m. A short time later, two night patrolmen arrived at the Thomas Garage. The three officers parked in a position to view the traffic on the two lane highway. There was little southbound traffic on the highway at that time.

A few minutes later, a southbound vehicle slowly came by. The officers turned on their headlights and observed a Nash Rambler with two men in the front seat and what appeared to be a piece of furniture or a cabinet in the back. The officers followed the vehicle in order to check the license number. They noted that the license number corresponded with that supplied by the Oakland Police Department, that the vehicle appeared to be heavily loaded and sagged to the left in the rear. The officers continued to follow and radioed the Napa Police Department for assistance. At about 4:00 a. m., five police units stopped the Nash near the west end of Marshall Bridge. The car pulled over as soon as the red light and siren were turned on.

Sgt. Meyer got out of his car and walked to the Nash on the driver's side, leaving instructions with Deputy Robinson to be careful in approaching the vehicle on the passenger side and to be sure nothing was thrown out. As Meyer walked to the car, he looked in the back to see if anyone else was in the car. He observed a television set on the back seat of the car and two pry bars on the floor on the right side near the door. When Meyer asked the occupants of the Nash to get out on the driver's side, both of them did. Hawvichorst, who had been driving, got out first rather reluctantly and slowly. Hawvichorst was asked for his name and a check was made on the registration of the Nash. No questions were asked about the television set. The appellant was not interrogated.

The appellant and Hawvichorst were handcuffed and taken to the Napa police station, while another officer drove the Nash to the sheriff's office. Appellant then accompanied Sgt. Meyer to the sheriff's office and placed his personal property on the booking counter. When Sgt. Meyer asked him if the keys on the counter were keys to the Nash, appellant relied they were not and that they were his keys. Meyer then asked: 'Then you don't mind if I try them.' Appellant replied: 'No, they don't fit.' Meyer interpreted this remark to mean that the appellant did not object and he opened the trunk of the Nash by using the appellant's keys. The trunk was heavily loaded with assorted merchandise and tools: the former included whiskey, cartons of cigarettes, several sticks of salami and some vociferous cheeses; the latter included a power drill, numerous wrenches, a large drill bit, a heavy ax-ended hammer and a brace with a bit attached, rope, some gloves and a pair of binoculars.

Sgt. Meyer with several deputies proceeded northbound on the highway to ascertain whether any establishment had been victimized. Eventually, they arrived at The Grapvine Inn north of Yountville and observed that the door on the south side of the building had been forced open. The interior was in a state of shambles with the juke box broken into, the television lead-in wire broken and the set missing. Papers were strewn on the floor...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • People v. Estrada
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • May 3, 1965
    ...and search without a warrant, police officers may rely on information coming to them from official sources (People v. Schellin (1964) 227 A.C.A. 260, 265, 38 Cal.Rptr. 593; People v. Davis (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 517, 521, 23 Cal.Rptr. 152; People v. Stewart (1961) 189 Cal.App.2d 176, 178, 10......
  • People v. Ross
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 20, 1967
    ...from official sources. (People v. Estrada, 234 Cal.App.2d 136, 152(11), 44 Cal.Rptr. 165, 11 A.L.R.3d 1307; People v. Schellin, 227 Cal.App.2d 245, 251(7), 38 Cal.Rptr. 593.) Shortly thereafter, while patrolling in the vicinity of the mill yard, the officers observed defendant walking throu......
  • People v. Norman
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 1967
    ...to believe that defendant and the occupants of the car had committed a felony. (Pen.Code, § 836, subd. 3; People v. Schellin (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 245, 249-- 251, 38 Cal.Rptr. 593, cited with approval in People v. Webb (1967) 66 A.C. 99, 103--104, 56 Cal.Rptr. 902, 424 P.2d 342; and see Peo......
  • People v. Armstrong
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • July 15, 1991
    ...by one police department to another must be presumed reliable unless it is manifestly shown to be otherwise." (People v. Schellin (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 245, 251, 38 Cal.Rptr. 593; cf. People v. Honore (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 295, 299-300, 82 Cal.Rptr. 639; People v. Sanders (1967) 250 Cal.App.2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT