People v. Tarkington
| Decision Date | 28 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 14727 |
| Citation | 78 Cal.Rptr. 149,273 Cal.App.2d 466 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles William TARKINGTON, Defendant and Appellant. |
Donald F. Roeschke, Tarzana, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Suzanne E Graber, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Appellant, after a waiver of jury trial and submission of the matter upon the transcript of his preliminary hearing and a stipulation of counsel, was convicted of a violation of Penal Code, section 12021, possession of a concealable firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony. This appeal does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the conviction is based, but attacks the validity of the search which disclosed the proscribed weapon.
On June 8, 1967, at about 9 p.m., two Los Angeles County deputy sheriffs entered a Compton Avenue tavern on a routine 'bar check'. One of them observed what appeared to be the outline of a handgun under appellant's shirt. The officers then asked appellant to step outside. As the appellant and the two officers walked toward the door, one of the officers reached around appellant and felt an object which seemed to be a gun. The officer then removed a .32-caliber automatic from the person of appellant. Appellant was arrested and, having previously been convicted of a felony, was charged with the violation of Penal Code, section 12021 of which he was subsequently convicted. 1
At trial, appellant objected to the introduction in evidence of the .32-caliber automatic upon the ground that it was illegally obtained and, thus, preserved for appeal the question now before us.
We conclude that the weapon which constitutes the critical item of evidence against appellant was legally seized and properly admitted in evidence. That conclusion may be sustained on either of two bases: (1) the weapon was seized incident to the arrest of appellant for an apparent misdemeanor being commited in the presence of the arresting officers; or (2) the seizure of the pistol resulted from a reasonable search for weapons conducted by officers incident to their right of self-protection in carrying out their duty of investigation of possible criminal behavior.
Probable Cause to Arrest. A search incident to a lawful arrest satisfies constitutional requirements. A peace officer lawfully may make an arrest when he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested has committed a public offense in his presence. (Pen.Code, § 836.) In the case at bench, such reasonable cause is found in the observation by the arresting officers of what appeared to them to be a handgun beneath appellant's shirt. The trial court could properly find that from that observation there arose a reasonable and strong suspicion that appellant was in violation of Penal Code, section 12025 which provides that '(a)ny person who carries concealed upon his person * * * any pistol * * * capable of being concealed upon the person without having a license to carry such firearm * * * is guilty of a misdemeanor, and if he has been convicted previously of any felony * * * is guilty of a felony.'
Appellant argues that the absence of a license to carry the weapon is a necessary element of a violation of section 12025 and absent some evidence of a lack of a license there was no probable cause for the arrest. The argument fails. For the purpose of probable cause at least, the existence of a license which validates the possession of what would otherwise be contraband need not be disproved by the investigating officer. It is the burden of the person possessing the weapon to show his license. (People v. Williams, 184 Cal.App.2d 673, 7 Cal.Rptr. 604; see also People v. Boo Doo Hong, 122 Cal. 606, 55 P. 402; People v. Harmon, 89 Cal.App.2d 55, 200 P.2d 32.) We note, also, that appellant's ineptness in accomplishing complete...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Garcia
... ... purposes of the state's gun laws even if it is only ... partly or ineptly concealed. See People v. Bernardo, ... No. D071728, 2017 WL 4981386, at *1 (Cal.Ct.App. Nov. 2, ... 2017) (unpublished[2]); People v. Aguilar, 245 ... l.App.4th 1010, 1017 (2016); People v. Tarkington, ... 273 Cal.App. 2d 466, 469 (1969). The same is true of ... partially concealed firearms in cars. See, e.g., ... People v. Hale, ... ...
-
People v. Galvan
...gun was protruding from the front seat and was observed by [an officer] as he looked through the windshield"]; see People v. Tarkington (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 466, 469 ["[A]ppellant's ineptness in accomplishing complete concealment of the weapon did not relieve him from commission of the cri......
-
People v. Superior Court
...had probable cause to arrest Saari immediately upon their discovery of this weapon. 7 (Pen.Code, § 836(1); People v. Tarkington, 273 A.C.A. 500, 503, 78 Cal.Rptr. 149.) The remainder of the search of Saari's person was justified as incidental to his arrest. (Cf. People v. Marshall, 69 Cal.2......
-
People v. Hale, Cr. 24910
...Only partial concealment of a firearm is required. (People v. Koehn,25 Cal.App.3d 799, 802, 102 Cal.Rptr. 102; People v. Tarkington, 273 Cal.App.2d 466, 469, 78 Cal.Rptr. 149; People v. Linden, 185 Cal.App.2d 752, 757, 8 Cal.Rptr. 640.) One portion of the automatic pistol, the housing and b......