People v. Soles
| Decision Date | 09 February 1977 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 15691 |
| Citation | 136 Cal.Rptr. 328,68 Cal.App.3d 418 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gayle E. SOLES, Defendant and Appellant. |
Richard N. Dinallo, O'Gara, Friedman, Egenes & Burke, San Francisco, for defendant-appellant (under appointment of the Court of Appeal).
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., Edward P. O'Brien, Asst. Atty. Gen., W Eric Collins, James D. Hurwitz, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for plaintiff-respondent.
Gayle E. Soles appeals from a judgment of imprisonment which was rendered after a jury found her guilty of possession of heroin (Health & Saf.Code, § 11350).
There is no claim of trial error; the appeal is based solely on a contention that the court should have granted appellant's pretrial motion to suppress evidence. Appellant contends that the evidence seized in the motel room occupied by appellant and her associates should have been excluded because the entry was based on information obtained by telephone eavesdropping on the part of the motel manager. Section 631 of the Penal Code, cited in appellant's brief, has no application: it prohibits wiretapping, and here there was no wiretap; the manager listened to the conversations by staying on the line after she had connected incoming calls with the telephone in the room.
Although the possible effect of section 632 of the Penal Code () is not mentioned in appellant's brief, the issue was argued in the trial court and will therefore be discussed briefly. The statute does not prohibit eavesdropping in general; it applies only to the use of 'any electronic amplifying or recording device' to eavesdrop upon or record a confidential communication. A telephone extension, not equipped with features for amplification 1 or recording, is not an 'electronic amplifying or recording device'. The action of the motel manager in staying on the line was not electronic eavesdropping within the meaning of the statute.
Moreover, the telephone conversations of the tenants, in aid of criminal activity, were not confidential, within the meaning of the statute, as against the manager of the motel. She had reason to suspect that the tenants were engaged in prostitution or in selling narcotics. Her awareness of such activities might ripen into guilty knowledge, subjecting her to penalties for maintaining a place where narcotics are sold (Health & Saf.Code, § 11366) or maintaining a house of prostitution (Pen.Code, § 316). Her lawful right and duty to guard against misuse of her property for purposes of prostitution or narcotics trafficking excluded the tenants from entertaining a reasonable expectation of privacy, as against the manager. (Cf. People v. Mahoney (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 699, 720, 122 Cal.Rptr. 174.) Therefore, the conversation were not confidential within the meaning of the statute, as against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warden v. Kahn
...69 Cal.Rptr. 595, 442 P.2d 675.) 4 In People v. Buchanan (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 274, 288, 103 Cal.Rptr. 66, and in People v. Soles (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 418, 420, 136 Cal.Rptr. 328, there is language to the effect that the privacy act applies to "eavesdropping," but in neither case was that la......
-
People v. Nazary
...and duty to guard against misuse of its property" to record others for guarding against criminal activity. (See People v. Soles (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 418, 421, 136 Cal.Rptr. 328, overruled on another point in Ribas v. Clark (1985) 38 Cal.3d 355, 360, 212 Cal.Rptr. 143, 696 P.2d 637.) Moreove......
-
Ribas v. Clark
...its content; and she attempted to use the information gained thereby at the arbitration proceeding. Relying on People v. Soles (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 418, 94 Cal.Rptr. 328, respondent argues that section 631 does not apply to the use of an extension The language of section 631 has been descri......
-
Ribas v. Clark
...of section 631. Defendant nevertheless argues that section 631 proscribes nothing more than wiretaps, and cites People v. Soles (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 418, 420, 136 Cal.Rptr. 328, as authority for this position. 3 In Soles, a motel manager furtively listened on the motel switchboard to teleph......