People v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 01 December 1969
• Citation: 2 Cal.App.3d 197,82 Cal.Rptr. 463
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, Respondent, Michael Howard SAARI, Real-Party in Interest. Civ. 35206.

Page 463

82 Cal.Rptr. 463

2 Cal.App.3d 197

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California FOR the COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, Respondent Michael Howard SAARI, Real-Party in Interest.

Civ. 35206.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Dec. 1, 1969.

Hearing Denied Jan. 28, 1970

[2 Cal.App.3d 198] David D. Minier, Dist. Atty., A. Barry Cappello, Chief Trial Deputy, and Stanley M. Roden, Deputy Dist. Atty., for petitioner.

George P. Kading, County Counsel, and Robert D. Curiel, Asst. County Counsel, for respondent.

James M. Slater, Santa Barbara, for real party in interest.

COBEY, Associate Justice.

The People, by means of a petition for writ of prohibition, have asked us to review, pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5(o), the trial court's order, after an evidentiary hearing, suppressing all of the evidence obtained by three sheriff's deputies from the Real Party in Interest, Michael Howard Saari, on the basis that this evidence was obtained by means of an unconstitutional search and seizure. We do not think it was and, therefore, appropriate relief by writ of mandate will be granted the People. (Cf. Stapleton v. Superior Court, 70 A.C. 101, 108, 73 Cal.Rptr. 575, 447 P.2d 967).

THE FACTS

Just prior to 6 p.m. on April 22, 1969, the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office received a telephone call from the FBI in Monterey, California, informing them that an anonymous informer had told the FBI that a white male, about 22 to 23 years old, with short blond hair, a surfer type, approximately 5 feet 11 inches tall and approximately 165 pounds in weight, wearing a sports suit, was due to arrive in Santa Barbara on Flight 240 of the Cal-State Airlines at about 6:25 p.m., that he was armed with a .22 caliber pistol and was known to be violent, and he would be carrying approximately 26 kilos of marijuana in two suitcases. This information was immediately passed on to Detective Prince of the Narcotics Detail of the Sheriff's Office.

Detective Prince and his partner, Detective Piceno, to whom he relayed this information, left immediately for the Santa Barbara airport where they met Captain Honey of the same office at about 6:15 or 6:20 p.m. At approximately 6:40 p.m. Detective Piceno saw three persons come off the designated plane and only Saari in appearance matched the detailed description which Piceno had received from Prince. To Piceno, Saari appeared to be approximately 22 years of age, a surfer type with short blond hair. He was wearing a sports coat and slacks. ¹ About three minutes later Piceno saw Saari pick up two suitcases and enter the terminal with them. Saari then went to a public telephone booth in the terminal about 25 or 30 feet from where he left his two suitcases.

The three officers, dressed generally in rough civilian clothes, ² started toward the booth with their hand guns drawn. Two of the officers were abreast and one was a few feet behind them. Saari was talking over the telephone with his back to the officers and his head turned away from them. Some 15 to 20 feet from the phone booth Detective Prince yelled to Saari to freeze. When Saari did not respond immediately Prince repeated the command and all three officers quickened their pace. Saari put down the telephone's receiver which he was holding in his left hand and turned toward the officers. As he did so he started to reach quickly into one of the pockets of his jacket. By this time the officers were upon him with their guns to his head. One said, 'Don't move, you SOB or we will blow your brains out.' ³

The officers forcibly removed Saari from the telephone booth. Detective Prince then subjected him to a spread eagle pat-down or cursory search from head to foot. In the course of this search Prince first felt from the outside of Saari's clothing a hard object in his right inside jacket pocket. Prince reached in and removed from his pocket a clip-loaded small caliber automatic pistol. He then continued his pat-down search for further weapons and felt a second hard oblong object in Saari's left outside jacket pocket. He reached inside this pocket and pulled out a small leather pouch from which protruded the bowl of a pipe. He looked into the bowl, saw a residue there and gave the pipe to his partner, Piceno, who visually examined and smelt the residue in the bowl. This was a gummy substance. Piceno, an expert in narcotics detection, determined that it appeared to be hashish or marijuana resin. Meanwhile, Prince opened up the pouch, turned it upside down and a packet of tin foil fell from it. ⁴ Prince opened up the packet and showed its contents to his partner who pronounced this to be hashish as well. The remainder of the pat-down was unproductive.

After Prince had completed his pat-down search of Saari he arrested and handcuffed him and advised him of his constitutional rights as required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. ⁵ Prince and his partner then took Saari over to where Saari's suitcases and Captain Honey were. Captain Honey asked Saari, 'Are these yours?' Saari replied, 'Yeah, there's 26 bricks in them.' ⁶ thereupon Prince opened up one of the suitcases and found in it approximately 12 kilos of marijuana. The officers then took Saari with them to the sheriff's office where the officers opened the other suitcase and found another 13 kilos of marijuana.

THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE WERE CONSTITUTIONAL

According to its memorandum opinion the trial court ordered the suppression of all the evidence obtained by the search and seizure of Saari's person and suitcases on the ground that the only justification the officers had was the information supplied the FBI in Monterey by an anonymous informer and that the officers, from the testimony of one of them, 'were bound to search' Saari's suitcases on this basis alone.

We disagree. Prior to their search and seizure of Saari the officers had more upon which to act than merely the information supplied them through the FBI from the anonymous informer. Just as in Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 312--313, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327, 331--332, they had by visual observation of Saari confirmed the accuracy of much of this detailed information. The initial unreliability of the informer and the incompleteness of their...