People v. Smith, Cr. 10755
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Citation | 106 Cal.Rptr. 272,30 Cal.App.3d 277 |
| Decision Date | 30 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 10755 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard L. SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. |
Page 272
v.
Richard L. SMITH, Defendant and Appellant.
As Amended Feb. 15, 1973.
Page 273
[30 Cal.App.3d 278] Jack T. Hirshon, Cupertino, for appellant (Under appointment of the Court of Appeal).
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen. of State of California, Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Criminal Division, William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Appeals Section, Robert R. Granucci, W. Eric Collins, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.
[30 Cal.App.3d 279] THE COURT:
Appellant was found guilty of possession of a concealable firearm by an ex-felon under section 12021 of the Penal Code. He now appeals from the judgment thereon, seeking a review of an order made with regard to his motion to suppress evidence at trial.
The circumstances related at trial indicate sufficient justification for the officers' approaching appellant and patting him down for weapons. The officers had received a report of a possible burglary, which stated that two Negro males were walking down the street in a particular location, carrying a TV and stereo equipment. Having proceeded immediately to that location, which was only five or six blocks away from where they were, they saw an automobile double-parked in the traffic lane near a stop sign. There were four Negro males around the open trunk of the car, and upon approaching the car the officers saw what appeared to be stereo equipment protruding from the open trunk. As the officers approached, appellant backed away and appeared nervous, at which point he was patted down for weapons, and the revolver which was the subject of his motion was found.
The initial approach for investigation here was justified, not only on the unarticulated basis that an apparent Vehicle Code violation was taking place, but on the grounds that there were specific, articulable facts indicating a rational suspicion that the activity observed here was out of the ordinary and also related to crime. (People v. Henze (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 986, 988, 61 Cal.Rptr. 545.) It has been held reasonable to stop and detain a vehicle described in a police radio report as having just participated in a reported robbery. (Ojeda v. Superior Court (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 909, 918, 91 Cal.Rptr. 145.) Thus, it was reasonable to approach a vehicle stopped in violation of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Suennen, Cr. 20129
...and articulation of facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed." (People v. Page 681 Smith (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 277, 279, 106 Cal.Rptr. 272.) This basic legal standard, enunciated in Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, has been......
-
Pryor v. Spearman, No. 2:14-cv-01521-DB
...Code section 1528.5 and misuses judicial resources. (People v. Jackson (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1370, fn. 3; People v. Smith (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 277, 280.) Such a motion is permitted, however, under limited circumstances. "If, prior to the trial of a felony or misdemeanor, opportunity fo......
-
People v. Osborne, No. A121195.
...which could be used as weapons, and that a pat-down search is necessary for the officer's safety. (See People v. Smith [(1973)] 30 Cal.App.3d 277, 279-280 [106 Cal.Rptr. 272].)" Similarly, in People v. Castaneda (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1230 [42 Cal.Rptr.2d 18], the court upheld a patsea......
-
People v. Harris, Cr. 1448
...408, 506 P.2d 232; People v. Superior Court (Edmonds), 4 Cal.3d 605, 609--611, 94 Cal.Rptr. 250, 483 P.2d 1202; People v. Smith, 30 Cal.App.3d 277, 280--281, 106 Cal.Rptr. 272.) Furthermore, appellant's wife, who was living in the motel room with appellant, consented to the search of the ro......
-
People v. Suennen, Cr. 20129
...and articulation of facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed." (People v. Page 681 Smith (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 277, 279, 106 Cal.Rptr. 272.) This basic legal standard, enunciated in Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, has been......
-
Pryor v. Spearman, No. 2:14-cv-01521-DB
...Code section 1528.5 and misuses judicial resources. (People v. Jackson (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1370, fn. 3; People v. Smith (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 277, 280.) Such a motion is permitted, however, under limited circumstances. "If, prior to the trial of a felony or misdemeanor, opportunity fo......
-
People v. Osborne, No. A121195.
...which could be used as weapons, and that a pat-down search is necessary for the officer's safety. (See People v. Smith [(1973)] 30 Cal.App.3d 277, 279-280 [106 Cal.Rptr. 272].)" Similarly, in People v. Castaneda (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1230 [42 Cal.Rptr.2d 18], the court upheld a patsea......
-
People v. Harris, Cr. 1448
...408, 506 P.2d 232; People v. Superior Court (Edmonds), 4 Cal.3d 605, 609--611, 94 Cal.Rptr. 250, 483 P.2d 1202; People v. Smith, 30 Cal.App.3d 277, 280--281, 106 Cal.Rptr. 272.) Furthermore, appellant's wife, who was living in the motel room with appellant, consented to the search of the ro......