People v. Steffano

• Decision Date: 25 January 1960
• Docket Number: Cr. 6816
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mary STEFFANO (True Name: Mary Powell), Defendant and Appellant.

Page 176

2 Cal.Rptr. 176

177 Cal.App.2d 414

PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mary STEFFANO (True Name: Mary Powell), Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 6816.

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

Jan. 25, 1960.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 10, 1960.

Joseph T. Forno, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth Miller, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

FOX, Presiding Justice.

Defendant was convicted of violating Penal Code, § 337a, subdivision 1, bookmaking; subdivision 2, unlawfully occupying a residence with paraphernalia for the purpose of recording bets; and subdivision 4, unlawfully recording a bet. She has appealed from the judgment and sentence.

Some time prior to January 6, 1959, Officers Lopez and Tucker, of the Los Angeles Police Department, investigated an official vice complaint concerning 4105 Montclair Street, which was one unit of a triplex. They determined that no bookmaking activities were being carried on there. While they had 4105 under observation, Officer Lopez, on several occasions, saw unidentified men entering 4109 Montclair (another unit of the same building), remain a short time, and then leave. The latter address was under observation approximately half a dozen times over a period of about two weeks. At approximately 3:20 in the afternoon of January 6, 1959, the officers went to the rear of 4109 Montclair. Officer Lopez noticed that all the blinds were drawn; one, however, did not completely cover a window, so that it was possible to see into the house. He observed defendant through this window. The rear door had glass panels covered by a drawn shade, which was quite worn and frayed in places so that it did not completely cover the glass panels. Officer Tucker observed defendant through the glass panel on the left side of the door as he was facing it. Defendant was seated at a table in the kitchen with her back to the officers. They observed a telephone, a copy of the National Daily Reporter scratch sheet, and several other papers on the table. Lopez heard the telephone ring and observed defendant answer it, but he could not hear the conversation. Defendant, however, appeared to be listening and also appeared to make notations on the National Daily Reporter. Tucker went around to the front and knocked on the door, while Lopez remained at the back and continued to observe the defendant. A few seconds after Tucker went around to the front, Lopez observed defendant leave the kitchen and go into another room. Tucker saw the blind on the front door being pulled aside a few seconds after he had knocked. He identified himself as a police officer to defendant, and displayed his bedge. The blind then closed. Officer Lopez, who was still at the rear, observed defendant return to the kitchen immediately, pick up some papers on the table where she had been sitting, and place them underneath the kitchen stove. She then left the kitchen again. About a minute and a half later, defendant returned to the front and opened the door. Officer Tucker told defendant that he had received a complaint for bookmaking and would like to come in and talk to her about it. Defendant said, 'All right; come on in.' Officer Tucker thereupon entered the house. He then went into the kitchen, where he saw the telephone and a daily newspaper on the table. He opened the rear door and Officer Lopez entered. Lopez went over to the stove where he recovered the National Daily Reporter, dated that day, and other papers which were under the stove, among which was a white piece of paper with several notations on it. These notations were compared with the issue of the National Daily Reporter, which he had retrieved. It was his expert opinion that these notations indicated that wagers had been placed on various horses running at different race tracks throughout the United States. It was after the scratch sheet and other papers were found under the stove that Officer Tucker arrested the defendant. She admitted that the notations were in her handwriting but denied that she was engaged in bookmaking activities. While the officers and defendant were in the kitchen the telephone rang. The call was taken by Officer Tucker. The caller identified himself as 'Joe,' who sought to place bets on horses running in the 7th and 8th races at Santa Anita track on that afternoon. A bill from the telephone company, bearing the name 'Mary Steffano' and the address 4109 Montclair Street, was found in the kitchen. Neither of the officers had search warrants for these premises, nor did they have any warrant for defendant's arrest.

In seeking a reversal, defendant contends that the court erred in admitting into evidence the telephone bill, and issue of the National Daily Reporter of January 6th, and the white piece of paper on which the notations were found. Her position is that there was no reasonable or probable cause for the search; that it was therefore illegal, and, as a consequence, these documents were erroneously received in evidence. We find no merit in defendant's contentions.

Reasonable or probable cause is shown when a man of ordinary care and prudence, knowing what the officer knows, would be led to believe or conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. People v. Kilvington, 104 Cal. 86, 92, 37 P. 799; Bompensiero v. Superior Court, 44 Cal.2d 178, 183, 281 P.2d 250; People v. Fischer, 49 Cal.2d 442, 446, 317 P.2d 967; People v. Carnes, 173 Cal.App.2d 559, 343 P.2d 626. Such cause may exist even though there may be some room for doubt. People v. Nagle, 25 Cal.,2d 216, 222, 153 P.2d 344. Making observations through a window does not constitute an illegal search, and the officers were entitled to act upon the information thus obtained. People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 755, 762-763, 290 P.2d 855; People v. Moore, 140 Cal.App.2d 870, 871, 295 P.2d 969; People v. Hen Chin, 145 Cal.App.2d 583, 586, 303 P.2d 18. The items the officers observed on the kitchen table suggested racing paraphernalia. During the course of...