People v. Schraier
| Decision Date | 16 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5492 |
| Citation | 141 Cal.App.2d 600,297 P.2d 81 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Donald SCHRAIER and Jack Percy Almond, Jr., Defendants, Donald Schraier, Appellant. |
Roger J. Pryor, Compton, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Convicted of having had possession of marijuana cigarettes, Health & Safety Code, § 11500, defendant appeals from the order granting him probation, 1 and from the order denying his motion for a new trial.
Officers Naylor and McMahan of the Long Beach Police Department had for two hours been watching a cottage on Cherry Avenue, Long Beach, prior to the arrival of appellant and his companions in an automobile. The cottage was the residence of one Ray Anderson. It had been under surveillance by the police for several months by reason of their knowledge of certain undisclosed activities at the house during that time. On the evening in question, they were making a routine check on the house and particularly were looking for Messrs. Dement and Woods who were under bail for prior possession of marijuana. They had not been convicted. About 8:15 p. m. Dement emerged from the cottage, but was not arrested. When one Fowler later came out, Officer Naylor arrested him. But what, if anything, the officer found on him does not appear. At some time and for some reason the officers had also arrested one O'Donnell, but it does not appear that he came out of the Cherry Street house or that he had any marijuana on him. At 9:55 while Officer Naylor and his partner sat in their police car with Fowler and O'Donnell, Naylor observed a car with three occupants enter the driveway of the Anderson cottage. All three left the conveyance and entered the house. The officer had never seen defendant Schraier before. For about 15 minutes Naylor and McMahan observed the cottage from different positions. Their attempts to see the interior were frustrated by the drawn shades. The three men who came out of the front door about 10:15 were Almond, appellant, and Ord. The latter was also a stranger to the police, but they recognized Almond. While Naylor was about 35 feet away, Almond and Ord entered the conveyance on the passenger side. Then as Naylor for the first time observed Schraier standing near the driver's seat, Almond suddenly left the vehicle, and as promptly re-entered it. There was some conversation that the police could not hear, but as soon as Almond had entered it for the second time, Officer Naylor, with neither a search warrant nor a warrant for arrest, said to appellant, 'I am a police officer.' Whereupon appellant placed his right hand in his right outside coat pocket; the officer grabbed his right wrist and held his hand in that pocket. When it was finally withdrawn from the pocket, the hand was empty. Schraier's resistance was only casual, indeed he was cooperative. While Naylor was holding appellant, he saw Almond insert a white cigarette into his mouth and swallow it and at the same time lock the door on the passenger's side, thereby preventing McMahan from entering the car. Naylor searched defendant's person and brought forth the contents of his pockets, among which were two white paper, hand-rolled cigarettes. A chemical analysis subsequently disclosed them to contain marijuana. The officer did not testify which pocket of the jacket yielded the cigarettes, and there is no basis for an inference that they were in the right outside pocket. Of course, a search cannot be justified by discovery of 'contraband' objects. People v. Brown, 45 Cal.2d 640, 643, 290 P.2d 528.
Almond admitted to the officers that the and Ord had gone to the cottage 'to see what was happening' and that he had swallowed the marijuana cigarette. However, appellant denied all knowledge of the cigarettes which had been removed from his pockets, and stated that his mother and his girl friend had worn his 'coat.' He side he had seen marijuana before; was a musician; had associated with musicians who used marijuana cigarettes. He did not 'know how the two cigarettes happened to be in his pocket.' After he had entered the house, he had offered his coat and placed it aside. It was his belief that the two hand-rolled white paper cigarettes must have been placed in the coat pocket by some other person by mistake.
Of the five persons who were searched, the police arrested only those who had marijuana on them. Ord, who sat next to Almond when the latter swallowed the cigarette, was searched, but having no narcotic on his person, he was not then arrested.
Appellant contends that if the arrest preceded the search, it was unlawful because it was without probable cause. Such contention is consonant with the law. There was neither knowledge of appellant's having a criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tenney
...and of itself does not establish that he was a resident of the premises or something more than a mere visitor. (See People v. Schraier, 141 Cal.App.2d 600, 603, 297 P.2d 81 (visit occurred at 10 p.m.).) This was a likely hour for visitors and the police surveillance showed that many persons......
-
People v. Soto
...to that room or house. People v. Kitchens, 46 Cal.2d 260, 294 P.2d 17; People v. Sanders, 46 Cal.2d 247, 294 P.2d 10; People v. Schraier, 141 Cal.App.2d 600, 297 P.2d 81. But the rule is not absolute. Each case must turn on its own facts. The test is whether the police had reasonable cause ......
-
People v. Tyler
...114; People v. Amos, 181 Cal.App.2d 506, 5 Cal.Rptr. 451; People v. Harvey, 156 Cal.App.2d 516, 319 P.2d 689; People v. Schraier, 141 Cal.App.2d 600, 297 P.2d 81; People v. Goodo, 147 Cal.App.2d 7, 304 P.2d 776; People v. Brown, 45 Cal.2d 640, 290 P.2d 528; People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645, 2......
-
People v. Cedeno
...apartment did not constitute reasonable or probable cause for his arrest and the search of his apartment. (See also People v. Schraier, 141 Cal.App.2d 600, 297 P.2d 81.) The People rely upon People v. Lawton, 186 Cal.App.2d 834, 9 Cal.Rptr. 122. The factual situation there is not only disti......