People v. Schultz

Decision Date13 June 1968
Docket NumberCr. 3203
Citation69 Cal.Rptr. 293,263 Cal.App.2d 110
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesThe PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Kenneth Murray SCHULTZ and Rodney Alan Spector, Defendants and Respondents.
OPINION

COUGHLIN, Associate Justice.

Plaintiff appeals from an order granting defendants' motion under Penal Code Section 995, to set aside an information charging them with the offense of possession of marijuana. The motion was based on the ground the only evidence at the preliminary hearing supporting the charge was the product of an unlawful search and seizure. The search was made without a warrant. Defendants assume it was made as an incident to a lawful arrest and contend probable cause to arrest did not exist; the arrest was illegal; and the incidental search was unlawful. Apparently this theory was adopted by the trial judge who, at the conclusion of the hearing, stated:

'I think the arrest was illegal, and the motion is granted.'

Defendant Schultz, as driver, and defendant Spector, as passenger, were riding in an automobile stopped by a police officer for a motor vehicle code violation. At the preliminary hearing the officer testified that while standing outside the open door of the automobile, waiting for Schultz to produce the vehicle registration card, he 'observed what appeared to be a marijuana seed and debris on the left rear floor of the vehicle'; in describing the substance he saw as marijuana he 'was mainly referring to the seed'; and, in response to a question on cross-examination, that the seed in question 'wasn't a complete seed'. Thereupon the officer placed defendants in custody and advised them of their constitutional right to remain silent and to be represented by counsel. He then pointed to the area where he had observed the seed and asked Schultz what it was. Counsel for defendants objected 'on the grounds no corpus delicti has been proven.' In explanation of this objection, counsel stated: 'I said no corpus delicti, because obviously nothing from this point on after the arrest is permissible unless the arrest was legal, and obviously it was an illegal arrest, as it appears to me.' The court overruled the objection 'subject to a motion to strike', with the admonition to the district attorney 'but you are going to have to show a usable quantity'. In answer to the question to which the objection was overruled, the officer testified Schultz stated: 'It looks like marijuana.' The officer further testified: 'I then conducted a search of the vehicle for further contraband.' The search revealed a plastic vial in the glove compartment containing marijuana in a usable quantity, and two shirts, belonging respectively to defendant Schultz and defendant Spector, each of which contained marijuana cigarettes. The evidence supports the conclusion each of the defendants admitted possession of the marijuana.

Preliminary to admitting in evidence testimony respecting the events occurring after the officer saw the 'marijuana seed and some debris on the rear floor of the car', the officer was examined and qualified as an expert on the identification of marijuana.

There was no objection to the admission of any evidence specifically upon the ground it was the product of an unlawful search and seizure. Unless such an objection is urged at the preliminary hearing it may not be asserted on a motion under Penal Code Section 995. (People v. McFarren, 155 Cal.App.2d 383, 317 P.2d 998.) In the case at bench, the broad assertion by counsel for defense that 'nothing * * * after the arrest is permissible unless the arrest was legal' suggests probable reliance upon an unlawful search and seizure objection. That the magistrate might have surmised such is suggested by his remarks at the close of the hearing that: 'I think there is reasonable and probable cause to conduct the search on the finding of the marijuana seed; therefore, I will find the defendants held to answer.'

On appeal both parties direct their contentions to the unlawful search and seizure issue.

A finding by the magistrate that probable cause exists for a search, if supported by substantial evidence, must be accepted in determining the issue on a motion under Penal Code Section 995. (Rideout v. Superior Court etc., 67 A.C. 475, 478, 62 Cal.Rptr. 581, 432 P.2d 197; Badillo v. Superior Court etc., 46 Cal.2d 269, 271--272, 294 P.2d 23; People v. Harris, 256 A.C.A. 502, 505, 63 Cal.Rptr. 849.) An officer may search an automobile when he has reasonable cause to believe it is carrying contraband. (People v. Terry, 61 Cal.2d 137, 152, 37 Cal.Rptr. 605, 390 P.2d 381; People v. Gale, 46 Cal.2d 253, 255, 294 P.2d 13; People v. Allen, 254 A.C.A. 650, 656--657, 62 Cal.Rptr. 235; People v. Brajevich, 174 Cal.App.2d 438, 443, 344 P.2d 815.) Reasonable cause for such belief exists where the facts 'would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion' that contraband is present; and may be shown by 'evidence which inclines the mind to believe, but leaves some room for doubt'. (People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 412--413, 2 Cal.Rptr. 14, 17, 348 P.2d 577, 580.) Circumstances may justify the search of an automobile although they would not justify the search of a home or other fixed piece of property (People v. Webb, 66 Cal.2d 107, 114--115, 56 Cal.Rptr. 902, 424 P.2d 342; People v. Harris, supra, 256 A.C.A. 502, 507, 63 Cal.Rptr. 849), and the issue of reasonable cause must be determined accordingly.

Applying the foregoing rules to the facts in the case at bench, we conclude the officer, upon observing a marijuana seed in the automobile in which defendants were riding, had reason to believe other marijuana might be located in the automobile. Under these circumstances, the right to search was not related to the arrest; existed independently thereof; and, as hereinafter noted, was not affected thereby. (People v. Allen, supra, 254 A.C.A. 650, 656--657, 62 Cal.Rptr. 235; People v. Brajevich, 174 Cal.App.2d 438, 443, 344 P.2d 815.)

Defendants contend a finding of reasonable cause to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • Nollins v. Superior Court (People), B052186
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 29, 1990
    ...a dismissal motion pursuant to section 995. (Robison v. Superior Court (1957) 49 Cal.2d 186, 187, 316 P.2d 1; People v. Schultz (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 110, 113, 69 Cal.Rptr. 293; People v. McFarren (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 383, 384, 317 P.2d 998.) Defendant raises additional claims in his petit......
  • People v. Newman, Cr. 8227
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 11, 1971
    ...the person in possession of the vehicle. (See Fraher v. Superior Court, 272 Cal.App.2d 155, 163, 77 Cal.Rptr. 366; People v. Schultz, 263 Cal.App.2d 110, 114, 69 Cal.Rptr. 293; People v. Nichols, supra, 1 Cal.App.3d 173, 176-177, 81 Cal.Rptr. 481; and see People v. White, 71 Cal.2d 80, 82-8......
  • Wimberly v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • March 19, 1976
    ...v. Evans (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 78, 82--83, 79 Cal.Rptr. 714 (seeds and debris observed on seat of vehicle); People v. Schultz (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 110, 114, 69 Cal.Rptr. 293, approved in People v. Fein (1971) 4 Cal.3d 747, 754--755, 94 Cal.Rptr. 607, 484 P.2d 583 (a single seed, plus a few......
  • Montez v. Superior Court (People), B052892
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • August 27, 1991
    ...a dismissal motion pursuant to section 995. (Robison v. Superior Court (1957) 49 Cal.2d 186, 187, 316 P.2d 1; People v. Schultz (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 110, 113, 69 Cal.Rptr. 293; People v. McFarren (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 383, 384, 317 P.2d 998.) Defendant raises additional contentions in his ......
  • 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