People v. Smith
| Citation | 106 Cal.Rptr. 272,30 Cal.App.3d 277 |
| Decision Date | 30 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 10755 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard L. SMITH, Defendant and Appellant. |
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.
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 law in the specific vicinity where a possible burglary had been reported almost immediately prior to this and items fitting the general description of those reportedly involved are seen in the vehicle.
A frisk following a detention for investigation 'is an additional intrusion, and can be justified only by specification and articulation of facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the individual detained is armed; . . .' (Cunha v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 352, 356, 85 Cal.Rptr. 160, 162, 466 P.2d 704, 706.) There must be a reasonable belief by the officer that his safety, or that of others, is in danger. (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 26, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889.)
In the present case, the fact that the officers were investigating the report of a possible serious offense, and the fact that there were four adult males standing around the car and only two police officers, warranted a belief in the existence of possible danger.
In addition to the fact that the pat-search was justified, appellant's motion to suppress was improperly made for the first time as trial, and although the trial court chose to entertain the motion over the prosecution's objection on this basis, it was incumbent upon the court not to do so.
Section 1538.5 in subdivision (m) of the Penal Code states that the proceedings provided for under the section, along with sections 995, 1238 and 1466 of the same code, dealing with dismissal of the information and appeals, shall constitute the Sole and exclusive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Suennen
... ... "A frisk following a detention for investigation is an additional intrusion, and can be justified only by specification and articulation of facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed." (People v ... 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 restated often as follows: "The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed ... ...
-
Pryor v. Spearman
...of Penal 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, oppor......
-
People v. Harris
...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. Osborne
...screwdrivers 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 .)" Similarly, in People v. Castaneda (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1222, 1230 , the court upheld a patsearch, finding that the off......