People v. Todd, Cr. 20786
| Decision Date | 13 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 20786 |
| Citation | 26 Cal.App.3d 15,102 Cal.Rptr. 539 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James Allen TODD, Defendant and Appellant. |
Migdal & Lucks, Los Angeles, and Harvey Jay Migdal, Encino, for defendant and appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Herbert L. Ashby, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Russell Iungerich and Edward T. Fogel, Jr., Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant appeals from judgment of conviction for possessing a restricted dangerous drug in violation of section 11910 of the Health and Safety Code.
Believing them to be under the influence of either alcohol or drugs, police officers placed defendant and his brother in the rear of a patrol car while they searched the area for specific contraband. Defendant was neither told he was under arrest nor apprised of any constitutional right.
Unknown to defendant, a device was activated in the front seat of the vehicle for the purpose of recording conversation in the absence of the searching officers. In consequence of a recorded admission that he had swallowed the contraband, drugs were removed from defendant's stomach.
The sole contention on appeal is that the electronic recording of defendant's conversation constituted an unreasonable invasion of privacy in violation of the protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment, 1 rendering the drugs inadmissible.
Conceding there is not a California case precisely in point, defendant relies on Katz v. United States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576, which holds the test respecting permissibility of electronic surveillance to be twofold: 'First, that the overheard person has exhibited an actual 'subjective' expectation of privacy and, secondly, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable. " Katz involved the attachment of a recording device to a public telephone booth from which the petitioner placed his incriminating call. In exhibiting he had had an actual and reasonable expectation of privacy during his conversation, petitioner Katz prevailed.
However, while it is clear in the case before us that defendant was subjectively unaware his incriminating statement would be recorded or otherwise heard by the investigating officers, we do not believe society is prepared to recognize his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
De Lancie v. Superior Court of State of Cal., San Mateo County
...room; held: no reasonable expectation of privacy within meaning of tit. III or Cal. Invasion of Privacy Act); People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal. App.3d 15, 17, 102 Cal.Rptr. 539 (conversation recorded in police vehicle); People v. Santos (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 397, 400-402, 102 Cal.Rptr. 678 (mon ......
-
People v. Munoz
...defendant believed police were listening and so told his wife, he had no subjective expectation of privacy); People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 15, 17, 102 Cal.Rptr. 539 (taping of defendants' conversation in back of police car--no reasonable expectation of privacy); People v. Califano (19......
-
People v. Crowson
...(1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 292, 296, 116 Cal.Rptr. 690, cert. den. (1975) 420 U.S. 937, 95 S.Ct. 1147, 43 L.Ed.2d 414; People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 15, 17, 102 Cal.Rptr. 539; People v. Chandler (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 350, 355-356, 68 Cal.Rptr. 645.) And the few out-of-state cases that we ha......
-
People v. Williams
...v. Newton (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 292, 116 Cal.Rptr. 690, cert. den., 420 U.S. 937, 95 S.Ct. 1147, 43 L.Ed.2d 414 and People v. Todd (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 15, 102 Cal.Rptr. 539, which held that individuals who had been arrested and placed in the rear of a patrol car had no reasonable expectatio......