People v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 26 March 1975
• Docket Number: Cr. 25376
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Adrian TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 762

120 Cal.Rptr. 762

46 Cal.App.3d 513

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Adrian TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 25376.

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

March 26, 1975.

[46 Cal.App.3d 516] Richard H. Levin, Los Angeles, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Crim. Div., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Lawrence P. Scherb II, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

DELL, Associate Justice. ^*

Defendant convicted by a jury of three counts of first degree burglary and one count of attempted second degree burglary, was sentenced to state prison. ¹ He appeals.

There is no issue raised as to sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. Defendant, however, claims error in the following particulars:

1. Denial of his motions to suppress the fruits of his arrests on June 22 and November 20, 1973.

2. Disallowance of his challenge to the jury panel.

3. Denial of his motion for mistrial.

4. Denial of his motion for dismissal of the information for alleged denial of his right to a speedy trial.

5. Denial of his motion to exclude, for impeachment purposes, evidence of an admitted prior felony conviction.

We have examined the entire record, including superior court files A--127914 and A--126656. ² We set forth the relevant evidence in some detail.

I THE ARREST OF JUNE 22, 1973

On June 22, 1973, at 4:40 or 4:45 a.m., Officers Donald J. Burch and Michael J. Thomas of the Los Angeles Police Department were on patrol in a marked police vehicle at Topanga Canyou and Saticoy. They received an 'all units call' that a 'cat burglary' had occurred at 20216 Delita. This location is two or three blocks south of Ventura and within a block or two of Winnetka.

The officers arrived at the intersection of Winnetka and Ventura within three or four minutes and parked at the northwest corner. They saw a yellow van proceeding on Winnetka. The defendant, a male Negro, was driving. Only four or five minutes had elapsed. The direction in which the van was proceeding was away from the location of the burglary. The officers caused the vehicle to stop. Burch went up on the passenger side of the van and saw defendant reaching over toward the passenger seat. He told defendant to put his hands on the steering wheel. He looked into the van and saw an orange furniture dolly, a stereo and a plastic container normally used for going on picnics or storing frozen items. He also saw on the floor a knife, screwdriver, flashlight, and a pair of brown gloves.

Thomas, suspecting the defendant of having possibly committed a burglary, asked him to alight from the vehicle and patted him down for tolls and weapons. He saw a screwdriver in defendant's left front pocket. Thereafter, appellant was arrested and transported to the West Valley Police Station. The van was driven there by another officer. The van was searched at the station and certain property found therein was booked. At the trial Burch testified that following a search of the van at the police station, he recovered an ice chest containing frozen meat and butter, a stereo, a small television set, a chess set, a handbag and a small .25 caliber automatic pistol with a clip. All of these items excepting the pistol were identified by Don Paul and Irmgard Huth as having been taken from their respective homes some time between the night of June 21 and 6:00 or 7:00 a.m. of June 22.

Prior to seeing the yellow van, Burch had received the following information: He had heard on the radio that 'a cat burglar ³ was working south of the Boulevard . . . south of Ventura.' He had information from 'DO sheets' ⁴ that there was a 'cat burglar working . . . south of the Boulevard; North Hollywood-Van Nuys Division; West Valley Division, hitting approximately two to three houses each time he would hit. Also that it was a male Negro, 5 10 , 170--180 pounds.' Being taken in the burglaries were 'large items . . . such as color TV's, larger TV's. And it would take approximately either two men to carry these items or a mover's dolly to move them.' These burglaries were occurring between approximately 11:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. Burch had known of the cat burglar for at least a month prior to June 22. He had heard on two occasions about a yellow van being used, once over the radio and once, three or four nights later, at roll call from Investigator (Sergeant) Lee. On both occasions a Negro male had been described. The radio call further described the suspect as 5 10 to 5 11 , 170--180 pounds. The roll call was on June 18 or 19.

Lee had discussed a number of 'cat burglaries': 'the one in Van Nuys, also the ones south of the Boulevard (sic) in the Van Nuys Division, North Hollywood, West Valley.' He talked about one burglary where a shot was fired at the burglar ⁵ and where mace was used on a victim.

Prior to seeing the yellow van, Thomas had received the following information: At roll call Lee had spoken of burglaries south of 'the Boulevard' where he suspected the existence of a dolly or multiple suspects because of the large items taken; a yellow van was also mentioned. He had heard a broadcast five or six days prior from Van Nuys concerning the burglary where a yellow van was involved. He had seen daily occurrence sheets which listed information several days prior, including numerous burglaries which had occurred south of the boulevard involving large items taken with possible dollies. Also, Lee had told of an occasion where a suspect shot a pistol at a victim and an occasion where mace was used on a victim. The Modus operandi was that of a 'cat burglar.'

Defendant contends initially that the detention of June 22 was unlawful but, should that argument be rejected, the People did not meet their burden of proving the source of the 'probable cause' information in their possession. We discuss those contentions in turn.

While a detention of a citizen by a police officer based on a 'mere hunch' is unlawful, if there is a rational Suspicion that some activity out of the ordinary is taking place, and some Suggestion that the activity is related to crime, a detention is permissible. (Citations.)' (People v. Gravatt, 22 Cal.App.3d 133, 136--137, 99 Cal.Rptr. 287, 289, cited with approval in People v. Gale, 9 Cal.3d 788, 797--798, 108 Cal.Rptr. 852, 511 P.2d 1204; emphasis in original.) It is manifest that the appearance of defendant in the yellow van in such close proximity in time and space to the 'cat burglary' reported at 20216 Delita, the direction of movement of the van, and the sex and race of the defendant--coupled with the information already possessed by Officers Burch and Thomas--lent credence to a 'rational suspicion that some activity out of the ordinary (was) taking place, and some suggestion that the activity (was) related to crime.' An objective perception of events should have indicated to reasonable men that the detention and questioning of defendant was not only appropriate Once the stopping of defendant's vehicle and his detention had been completed, no 'search' was necessary for Burch to discern possible fruits of the burglary ⁶ as well as instrumentalities of burglary. In addition, Thomas found a screwdriver in defendant's left front pocket. We are satisfied that there was probable cause to arrest the defendant for burglary. (See Pen.Code, § 836, subd. 3.)

but necessary to the proper discharge of their duties. (Cf. Irwin v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.3d 423, 426, 82 Cal.Rptr. 484, 462 P.2d 12.)

Defendant next claims a violation of the so-called Harvey-Madden principle, ⁷ as articulated in Remers v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 659, at pages 666--667, 87 Cal.Rptr. 202, at page 206, 470 P.2d 11, at page 15:

'It is well settled that while it may be perfectly reasonable for officers in the field to make arrests on the basis of information furnished to them by other officers, 'when it comes to justifying the total police activity in a court, the People must prove that the source of the information is something other than the imagination of an officer who does not become a witness.' (People v. Adkins, 273 Cal.App.2d 196, 198, 78 Cal.Rptr. 397, 398; People v. Lara, 67 Cal.2d 365, 374, 62 Cal.Rptr. 586, 432 P.2d 202; People v. Rice, 253 Cal.App.2d 789, 792, 61 Cal.Rptr. 394; People v. Pease, 242 Cal.App.2d 442, 448--450, 51 Cal.Rptr. 448; People v. Harvey, 156 Cal.App.2d 516, 319 P.2d 689.) To hold otherwise would permit the manufacture of reasonable grounds for arrest within a police department by one officer transmitting information purportedly known by him to another officer who did not know such information, without establishing under oath how the information had in fact been obtained by the former officer. (Cf. People v. Adkins, Supra, 273 Cal.App.2d 196, 198, 78 Cal.Rptr. 397; People v. Harvey, Supra, 156 Cal.App.2d 516, 523, 319 P.2d 689.) 'If this were so, every utterance of a police officer would instantly and automatically acquire the dignity of official information; 'reasonable cause' or 'reasonable grounds,' . . . could be conveniently fashioned out of a two-step communication; and all Fourth Amendment safeguards would dissolve as a consequence.' (People v. Pease, Supra, 242 Cal.App.2d 442, 449, 51 Cal.Rptr. 448, 453.)

'In sum, when an officer furnishes to another officer information which leads to an arrest, the People must show the basis for the former officer's information. More specifically in relation to the instant case, when an officer furnishes to another officer information as to alleged prior criminal activity of an individual relied upon for an arrest relating to subsequent activities of that individual, then the People must show the basis for the former officer's information. The absence of such a requirement would allow a police officer to manufacture reasonable grounds to arrest while circumventing the...