People v. Sterling
| Decision Date | 14 October 1957 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5900 |
| Citation | People v. Sterling, 154 Cal.App.2d 401, 316 P.2d 405 (Cal. App. 1957) |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Bertram S. STERLING, Defendant and Appellant. |
James L. Garcia, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Morris Schachter, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
DefendantBertram S. Sterling was convicted, in a nonjury trial, of violating section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code, in that he unlawfully had heroin in his possession.An allegation of the information that defendant had been previously convicted of violating said section was found to be true.Defendant appeals from the judgment.
Appellant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment; the corpus delicti was not established; and the arrest, search and seizure were illegal.
Officer Burkland testified that, on the day before the arrest, he received information from an informer that a person named Bertram, who lived in room 219 of the Royal Hotel, was a user and peddler of heroin; the arrest was made on October 1, 1956, about 3:30 p.m.; on the day of the arrest (and preceding the arrest) Officer Burkland and Officers Stephenson and Barry met a second informer at the rear of the hotel, and from that place the second informer pointed out room 219 of the hotel; the second informer told them that Bertram was a user of heroin; Officer Burkland had received reliable information from the first informer on prior occasions, but he had not received information from the second informer; Officer Burkland went to room 219, knocked on the door, and stated that he was a police officer; he heard a commotion in the room, and within about 20 seconds the door was opened by Dolores Johnson; defendant was also in the room; the window was open; when he(witness) was in the room he saw Officer Stephenson who was then standing in a parking lot (at the rear of the hotel); he(witness) saw a gold ring on defendant's right hand and he saw a silver ring upon defendant's left hand; he believed that Dolores Johnson did not have a ring on her hand; Officer Stephenson called his attention to a paper bindle within the wire enclosure (fence) at the rear of the hotel; then Officer Burkland went down to the rear of the hotel and retrieved the bindle and handled it to Officer Stephenson (who was outside the enclosure); Officers Burkland and Stephenson returned to the room where they had a conversation with defendant; defendant said that he had bought the half spoon papers from 'a kin of Bluejay's' on Fifth Street about an hour before the arrest, that he brought five of them and paid between $20 and $25 for them, that he got panicky when the officers knocked on the door and he threw the papers out the window.
Officer Stephenson testified that on October 1, 1956, about 3:20 p.m., he was on a rear porch of another hotel, which porch was about 100 feet from the window of room 219 of the Royal Hotel; from that vantage point he saw a hand, with a gold ring on it, come out the window (of room 219), and he saw a white bindle fall from the hand onto the parking lot and outside a fenced enclosure; about three seconds later he saw a hand, which appeared to be the same hand, come out the window and he saw a second bindle fall from the hand to the ground inside the enclosure; he(witness) went to the place where the first object fell and picked it up; that object consisted of three bindles with a rubber band around them; he could not reach the second object because it was inside the fence; he called to Officer Burkland, who was in the room, and told him that the fellow with a gold ring on his hand threw 'some stuff' out the window and that he(witness) could not reach one of the bindles; Officer Burkland came down and picked up the bindle which was inside the fence; then Officer Stephenson went into room 219 and at that time Officer Burkland, Officer Barry, the defendant, and a girl (Dolores) were in the room; the girl did not have any jewelry on her hands; the defendant had a gold ring on his right hand; Officer Burkland asked the defendant if the stuff was his; the defendant said that it was his, and that he got nervous when the officers were at the door and he threw it out the window.
The bindles contained heroin.The officers did not have a search warrant or a warrant for the arrest of defendant or any one in the room.
Mrs. Williams (also known as Dolores Johnson), a witness called by defendant, testified that on said October 1she resided in said room 219; a person by the name of Johnny Moore brought the heroin to that room prior to October 1; she and Moore, who were users of narcotics, had taken injections of heroin while in her room; on October 1 there was a knock on the door of her room by someone who said his name was 'Bobby'; she told the person to come back later, and at that time the person started kicking on the door; then she threw...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
People v. Jackson
...the result of an illegal search. The mere observation of that which is in open view does not constitute a search. (People v. Sterling, 154 Cal.App.2d 401, 405, 316 P.2d 405; People v. Spicer, 163 Cal.App.2d 678, 683, 329 P.2d 917.) It is not, nor can it be, claimed that the entry into the h......
-
People v. Roberts
...v. Ambrose, 155 Cal.App.2d 513, 522-523, 318 P.2d 181; People v. Wright, 153 Cal.App.2d 35, 38-39, 313 P.2d 868; People v. Sterling, 154 Cal.App.2d 401, 405-406, 316 P.2d 405; People v. Brooks, 154 Cal.App.2d 631, 635, 316 P.2d 435; People v. Jaurequi, 142 Cal.App.2d 555, 561, 298 P.2d We h......
-
People v. Amos
...the officer was entitled to pick up the bindle from the floor as part of his police investigation.' See also People v. Sterling, 154 Cal.App.2d 401, 405-406, 316 P.2d 405.' To same effect are, People v. Edwards, 142 Cal.App.2d 419, 421, 298 P.2d 664; People v. Sterling, 154 Cal.App.2d 401, ......
-
People v. Bly
...not obtained by any 'search,' for the mere observation of that which is in open view does not constitute a search. People v. Sterling, 154 Cal.App.2d 401, 405, 316 P.2d 405; People v. Spicer, 163 Cal.App.2d 678, 683, 329 P.2d 917. 'Entry upon the premises does not fall in that category.' Pe......