People v. Superior Court
| Decision Date | 07 April 1970 |
| Citation | 85 Cal.Rptr. 803,6 Cal.App.3d 379 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent. Timothy PEEBLES and William Pulliam, Real Parties in Interest. Civ. 27716. |
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., Derald E. Granberg, John P. Oakes, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for petitioner.
Gladstein, Andersen, Leonard, Sibbett & Patsey, Richard L. Patsey, San Francisco, for real parties in interest.
Timothy Peebles and William Pulliam have been charged by a grand jury indictment with conspiracy (Pen.Code, § 182), possessing a destructive device (Pen.Code, § 12303), recklessly and maliciously possessing an explosive in a public place (Health & Saf.Code, § 12304), and placing or using an explosive in or near a school (Health & Saf.Code, § 12305).
Peebles and Pulliam moved to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5. The motion was granted in part and denied in part by the superior court. The accused persons sought a writ of mandate in this court, which we denied. The People seek a writ of mandate to set aside that part of the order which grants the motion to suppress. We have granted the alternative writ as prayed by the People.
On March 5, 1969, during the rehearsal of an opera at San Francisco State College, at about 8 p.m., two men carrying attache cases entered the Creative Arts Building. The men have been identified as Peebles and Pulliam. A few minutes after they entered, there was an explosion. One of the men ran out of the building. The other man was seriously injured. Most, or all, of his fingers were blown off. There was a smell of gunpowder in the air. A ticking sound was heard from the attache case, which was not blown up. An army squad dismantled the bomb within it.
Peebles, the injured man, identified his companion as Pulliam. He gave Pulliam's address to the police and said that it was possible that he, too, had been injured. Police officers obtained a photograph of Pulliam at the Hall of Justice, went to his apartment, confirmed that he was an occupant by showing the picture to the manager, called out Pulliam's name and then entered, the manager using his key.
Within the apartment there were found a suitcase and pipes and caps that were similar to those used in other bombs which had been placed at State College. Shells were found from which gunpowder had been removed.
The subject of the present inquiry is the material which the trial court suppressed as evidence. The material in question is ammunition and weapons found in a closet, a letter which was found on the top of the drawer of a desk, and a Greyhound Bus receipt, also found in the desk drawer. The contents of the letter allegedly are incriminating, but at this time we do not need to analyze the subject matter nor to rule on the admissibility of the letter except as relates to its finding. The court suppressed these items on the ground that the officers were satisfied, before finding them, that Pullman was not in the apartment.
When the first officers entered the apartment, they did so, according to their testimony, in order to assist Pulliam if he had been injured, and to find him in any event in order to arrest him. When the substituting officers arrived, it was their purpose, they testified, to look for any explosives that may not have been found, and to find any address of Pulliam, for which purpose they opened the desk drawer.
We conclude that the officers were in hot pursuit of Pulliam within the meaning of People v. Smith, 63 Cal.2d 779, 48 Cal.Rptr. 382, 409 P.2d 222, and that there were exigent circumstances for their action within the meaning of People v. Roberts, 47 Cal.2d 374, 303 P.2d 721. The trial judge, therefore, was quite correct in denying the motion to suppress the evidence to the extent that he did so. But we are of the opinion that even though...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sirhan
...entered defendant's apartment, looked in several rooms, and found evidence in plain sight in the kitchen); People v. Superior Court (Peebles) 6 Cal.App.3d 379, 85 Cal.Rptr. 803 (circumstances suggesting the possibility of an unexploded bomb in an apartment held to constitute exigent circums......
-
People v. Hill
...appears to be necessary for that purpose. (People v. Roberts (1956) 47 Cal.2d 374, 377--378, 303 P.2d 721; People v. Superior Court (Peebles) (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 379, 85 Cal.Rptr. 803; People v. Gomez (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 781, 782--783, 40 Cal.Rptr. 616.) And in determining whether an offi......
-
People v. Remiro
...a warrantless entry (Romero v. Superior Court, supra, 266 Cal.App.2d at pp. 716-717, 72 Cal.Rptr. 430; People v. Superior Court (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 379, 382-383, 85 Cal.Rptr. 803). Moreover Tamborski was aware of the Foster murder, Duge's gun battle with Little and Remiro, probable SLA invo......
-
People v. Superior Court for Alameda County
...after 11:30 p. m. there was a need for further search to find and dispose of possible explosives (see People v. Superior Court (Peebles) (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 379, 381-383, 85 Cal.Rptr. 803), and because there was a riot or possible conspiracy occurring (see People v. Baird (1971) 18 Cal.App.......