People v. Triche
| Decision Date | 01 February 1957 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3237 |
| Citation | 306 P.2d 616,148 Cal.App.2d 198 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Raymond TRICHE, Defendant and Appellant. |
George Nye, Public Defender of Alameda County, Martin N. Pulich, Asst. Public Defender, Oakland, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen. of California, Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Arlo E. Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant, together with his codefendant Rose Tregre, was found guilty by the court, a jury hearing being waived, of violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code in that on September 27, 1955 they unlawfully had in their possession some heroin. He had admitted three prior convictions, of which two were for violation of section 11500, supra. His motion for a new trial was denied and he was sentenced to San Quentin, the judgment to run concurrently with other terms, if any, to which he had been sentenced. He appeals from the order denying the motion for a new trial and from the judgment of conviction.
Over the objection of the defendants, the court at the trial admitted into evidence four bindles of heroin seized in the search of an apartment at 714-32nd Street in Oakland, and also a statement voluntarily given to police officers and signed by appellant in which he admitted that the apartment had been rented by the defendants together, that they had lived there together for about 12 days, that they had bought the heroin together (they disagree as to whose money was used for the purchase) that both had used part of it, that they had put the remainder into bindles, that he had placed the bindles in the closet where they were found and that they belonged to both of them. Appellant's objection was based on the contention that both the signed admissions and the proof of the corpus delicti were the result of and vitiated by an illegal search. The overruling of this objection constitutes the only grievance on appeal.
The foundation laid by the People for the admittance of said evidence was to the following effect: On September 27, 1955 at 11:30 a. m. Officer Ingram of the Oakland Police Department, Special Services Division, received a telephone call from a reliable informant, who was known to him and had given him reliable information before, but whose name he refused to divulge, that he had seen four bindles of heroin in a closet at 714-32nd Street in a rear apartment in which Rose Tregre and Ray Triche were living. The officer had stopped Rose Tregre a number of times on the street and in examining her arms had found puncture marks and scars like those of narcotic users; he also knew that she associated with narcotic users and narcotic dealers. He had known Triche since 1950 when Triche was arrested for investigation of narcotics. He associated Triche with the narcotic traffic and had stopped him also a number of times and checked his arms. After receiving the above information the officer, together with a second one, without procuring a search warrant, went to the address given him. The informant also came there, repeated his information and indicated the apartment to which he had referred. The officers waited in the community bathroom near the apartment and when Rose Tregre came from outside and entered the apartment they arrested her, searched the closet and found and seized the bindles.
In itself the information of the known reliable informer of which the officer had good past experience, together with the circumstances regarding the suspects known to the officer which indicated probability of the correctness of the information given, constituted reasonable cause for the arrest and for the search, incident to the arrest, of the place where the arrest was made. Willson v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 291, 294-295, 294 P.2d 36; See Aitken v. White, 93 Cal.App.2d 134, 145, 208 P.2d 788. However, appellant both in the court below and on this appeal took the position that the arrest, the search and all the evidence introduced were vitiated by the fact that the unnamed informant was himself a peace officer of the State of California, who obtained the information transmitted to the arresting officer by means of an allegedly illegal search without a warrant of the apartment of defendants in their absence. Defendants produced as a witness for the defense Gunnar Gunheim, a parole officer of the State of California, who testified in substance that appellant was one of his parolees and that on the morning of September 27, 1955, he informed the Oakland Police Department of having seen 4 bindles of heroin in the apartment at 714-32nd Street after he had searched it that morning without a warrant in his capacity as parole officer of appellant, under the following circumstances: Appellant was on parole for a narcotics violation and for robbery. He had given to the witness, as his home address, a number on 57th or 59th Street, which the witness had on file. On September 21, 1955, he saw appellant driving a car (for which he had no permission). He followed the car until it stopped in front of the 32nd Street apartment. Questioned, Triche explained that the car belonged to Mr. and Mrs. Tregre who were living there. Triche introduced the officer in the apartment to Rose Tregre, who at the request of the officer produced papers showing that the car belonged to her and her husband. The tenor of the conversation was that she and her husband were living there. Triche's driving the car in connection with the requirements of his parole was discussed. Thereafter the officer checked on Rose Tregre with the police and obtained the information that her husband was not around but was either in jail or out of town. H...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Santos, GT-D
...People v. Denne, 141 Cal.App.2d 499, 297 P.2d 451 (information that parolee was associating with narcotics trafficker); People v. Triche, 148 Cal.App.2d 198, 306 P.2d 616 (reliable informer's tip that parolee possessed narcotics); People v. Hernandez, 229 Cal.App.2d 143, 40 Cal.Rptr. 100 (i......
-
People v. Kanos
...v. Mackie, 265 Cal.App.2d 662, 664, 71 Cal.Rptr. 350; People v. Robarge, 151 Cal.App.2d 660, 665, 312 P.2d 70; People v. Triche, 148 Cal.App.2d 198, 202, 306 P.2d 616; People v. Denne, 141 Cal.App.2d 499, 510, 297 P.2d 451.) A parole officer's apprehension of his prisoner for suspected viol......
-
Bielicki v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
...670, 671 (1), 6 Cal.Rptr. 866; People v. Howard (1958) 166 Cal.App. 38, 651(11-13), 334 P.2d 105; cf. People v. Triche (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 198, 203(4)-204(5), 306 P.2d 616), or by some other person in apparent joint control of the premises (People v. Kelly (1961) 195 A.C.A. 724, 732(2)-73......
-
State v. Cullison
...in the case of one possessed of full civil right. United States ex rel. Randazzo v. Follette, D.C., 282 F.Supp. 10; People v. Triche, 148 Cal.App.2d 198, 306 P.2d 616. In Follette, defendant's parole officer and one or more police detectives searched defendant's apartment while arresting hi......