People v. Shapiro

• Decision Date: 06 March 1963
• Docket Number: Cr. 8553
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sharon SHAPIRO, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 907

28 Cal.Rptr. 907

213 Cal.App.2d 618

The PEOPLE of the State California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Sharon SHAPIRO, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 8553.

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

March 6, 1963.

Stanley C. Poster, Hollywood, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Norman H. Sokolow, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

FOX, Presiding Justice.

Defendant was found guilty of violating section 11530, Health and Safety Code (possession of marijuana). She has appealed.

At about 1:00 a. m. on March 23, 1962, Los Angeles Police Officers Allen and Gates observed defendant come out of a bar on Figueroa Street and enter an unoccupied 1961 Ford convertible which had its top up. It was parked 'approximately at 11th Street.' When she started the car which was headed south on Figueroa, Officer Gates noticed that the tail light was out. The officers followed her in a marked police car. They turned on their emergency red light, then sounded the horn 'several times' and then flashed their large auxiliary flash light across the back of defendant's car. Defendant appeared to notice the officers. She slowed down at the corner of 12th and made a right turn on 12th. She stopped at Trenton which is one block west of Figueroa. Prior to defendant stopping, she leaned over in the seat so far that her head went out of Officer Allen's view. While making this movement her car turned in toward the curb, the front tire hitting the curb and bouncing off. It was then that defendant stopped.

Because of these actions on the part of defendant, Officer Allen looked inside the car after she alighted from it. Underneath the front seat ('approximately in the middle') he found a brown paper bag that contained a green leafy substance which proved to be marijuana. Further search under the floor mat turned up foreign debris which was 10% marijuana.

Defendant denied any knowledge that marijuana was in the car. It had been stolen twice, once about two months and the other time approximately two and a half weeks before this incident. It had been recovered each time and returned to the defendant's husband by the Santa Monica Police Department. The car was very dirty when returned the second time, and was taken to a car washing place.

Defendant maintained that when the officers stopped her she had been driving around the block, while waiting for her brother to come out of a restaurant where he had gone to see if a man, with whom he had an appointment, had arrived; that when she was bringing her car to a stop she dropped a cigarette she was smoking and bent down to pick it up. In response to Officer Gates' statement that she was not smoking when she entered her car, defendant replied that she did not remember what she was doing.

Defendant contends there was no showing of probable cause sufficient to justify the search of her car and therefore the marijuana that was found under the front seat was the product of an illegal search and was not admissible in evidence.

'The real criterion as to the reasonableness of a search is whether or not there has been the commission of a public offense in the presence of a police officer, or whether, under the facts, the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant may have committed a felony.' (People v. Soto, 144 Cal.App.2d 294, 298, 301 P.2d 45, 48 and cases there cited.) In People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, page 412, 2 Cal.Rptr. 14 page 17, 348 P.2d 577 at page 580, the court pointed out: 'There is no exact formula for the determination of reasonableness. Each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances. [Citations.]' Probable cause is shown if it is 'supported by evidence which inclines the mind to believe, but leaves some room for doubt.' (Id. p. 413, 2 Cal.Rptr. p. 17, 348 P.2d 577 p. 580.) In reviewing the trial court's finding on this question we must bear in mind that the rule allowing the trial court to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their evidence is applicable, and that we must accept all evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in support of the lower court's ruling. (People v. Fisher, 184 Cal.App.2d 308, 312-313, 7 Cal.Rptr. 461.)

Applying these principles to the factual picture here, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that the officers did not have reasonable cause to stop defendant and search her car. The officers observed the absence of a tail light. This justified the officers in following defendant and stopping her. (People v. West, 144 Cal.App.2d 214, 220-221, 300 P.2d 729.) While she could have been given a citation for her illegal lights, this would not have justified a search of the car for it would have had no relation to the...