People v. Valdez

• Decision Date: 10 April 1968
• Docket Number: Cr. 13072
• Citation: People v. Valdez, 260 Cal.App.2d 895, 67 Cal.Rptr. 583 (Cal. App. 1968)
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jack Ross VALDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 583

67 Cal.Rptr. 583

260 Cal.App.2d 895

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jack Ross VALDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 13072.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.

April 10, 1968.

Jean Clare Keister, Beverly Hills, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for appellant.

Thomas C. Lynch, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., George J. Roth, Philippe J. Monet, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.

KAUS, Presiding Justice.

Defendant appeals from an order committing him to the California Rehabilitation Center at Corona, as a result of a determination by the trial court, pursuant to section 3106 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, that he is a narcotic addict.

Defendant's apprehension by the authorities came about as follows. Shortly after noon, on August 11, 1966, Officers Olson and Evans of the Los Angeles Police Department, Narcotics Division, were conducting an investigation of Raul Guevarra and Eddie Nelson in connection with addiction and a burglary. Their investigation took them to a motel at 1750 Colorado Boulevard in Los Angeles. They went to the manager's office and inquired about Nelson and Guevarra. The manager told the officers the two men lived there, but that Guevarra was not in at the time. The officers went to the motel room and knocked on the door. Defendant pulled the drape aside and looked out the window. Officer Olson identified himself and said he wanted to talk to 'Eddie.' Defendant disappeared from view. Olson heard some walking around inside. The door opened about two minutes later and Guevarra was standing there. Olson stated to him, 'I want to talk to you, Raul.' Guevarra stepped back from the doorway and the officers entered. They had a short conversation with Guevarra. Nelson then came out of the bathroom and they talked with him. Both Nelson and Guevarra had numerous puncture marks and old scar tissue on their arms. The officers had information that they used narcotics. Guevarra and Nelson were placed under arrest for narcotics violations.

Defendant, meanwhile, was seated on one of the two beds in the room. He was wearing a T-shirt and had picked up another shirt. Officer Olson approached him and asked his name. Defendant replied, 'Valdez.' The room was in semi-darkness. The drapes were drawn; the only light came from a television set which was on. Officer Olson noticed defendant's pupils were contracted. By contrast the pupils of the other occupants of the room appeared normal. Olson glanced down at defendant's arms and noticed 'discolored tissue over the inner portions of both arms, inner elbow.' Olson then picked up defendant's arms and examined them closely. He observed several scabs, a puncture mark and a bad burn on one finger. He concluded that the scabs and puncture would had been caused by injection of narcotics and that defendant was then under the influence of narcotics. He placed defendant under arrest for violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code.

On August 15, 1966, the district attorney, pursuant to section 3100 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, filed a petition for commitment of defendant as a narcotics addict. The petition was accompanied by the affidavit of Doctor Patrick J. Lavelle, the physician who had examined defendant at the county jail infirmary on the morning of August 12, 1966. The affidavit, executed on the morning of August 15, 1966, stated: 'From the fact that patient presented with (sic) symptoms of narcotic withdrawal when seen by this examiner and verified by the nurses observations over past 72 hours; from the evidence of old tracks and recent puncture wounds as noted in the schematic, it is this examiner's opinion that this patient is an actual narcotic addict. Patient has repeatedly refused to give urine specimen.'

Also accompanying the petition for commitment was an 'application for admission of alleged narcotic addict' which had been executed by Officer Olson, on August 11, 1966, pursuant to section 3100.6 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. This application bore a notation by Officer Olson that defendant was given a copy of the document. An order of detention was issued by the superior court on August 15, 1966, and served on defendant the same day. (Welf. & Inst.Code § 3102.)

On August 17, 1966, defendant appeared in court. The public defender was appointed to represent him. Defendant was informed of the nature of the proceedings and of his rights. August 23, 1966, was set for hearing on the petition.

On August 23, 1966, defendant appeared in court with retained counsel who was thereupon substituted in for the public defender. The hearing was then continued to September 6, 1966.

On September 6, 1966, a hearing was held at which Officer Olson testified to the events which led to defendant's arrest. At the conclusion of Olson's testimony, defense counsel's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the officers had not had probable cause to arrest defendant or to examine his arms was denied. Defendant was ordered committed to the Director of Corrections for placement in the California Rehabilitation Center. Defendant then requested a jury trial, which was set for September 15, 1966. After defendant waived jury trial, trial to the court was held on October 10, 1966. Doctor Lavelle testified for the People. Defendant testified in his own behalf. The court found that the allegations of the petition were sustained and that defendant was a narcotic addict. Defendant was committed to the Director of Corrections in accordance with the earlier commitment of September 6, 1966.

Defendant asserts, essentially, four grounds of appeal:

1. That his commitment resulted from an illegal search and seizure of his person, the results of which must, constitutionally, be excluded from the commitment proceedings; 2. that the evidence of addiction presented by the People was insufficient, as a matter of law, to sustain the finding of addiction; 3. that the trial court applied an erroneous burden of proof in reaching its decision; and 4. that defendant's Miranda rights were violated

Search and Seizure.

We find that the conduct of the arresting officers did not constitute an illegal search or seizure. We therefore do not reach the question of whether the exclusionary rule (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081) applies in a civil narcotic commitment proceeding. (Cf. People v. Gonzales, 256 Cal.App.2d ---, ---, ^a 63 Cal.Rptr. 581.)

Defendant does not contend that the arrest of his companions was illegal, nor does he claim that the arresting officers' presence in the motel room was unlawful. He complains, however, that his mere presence in the motel room in company with others who had committed narcotics violations was insufficient to justify his arrest and that the 'seizure' and examination of his arms were therefore impermissible.

The initial fallacy of defendant's argument is his premise that the officers based his arrest on either his mere presence in the room or on the results of picking up his arm. As was pointed out in People v. Ramirez, 185 Cal.App.2d 301, 306, 8 Cal.Rptr. 184, 188: 'It is, of course, clear that the mere fact that a person is on premises where officers have reason to believe there are narcotics will not justify either his arrest or a search of his person. People v. Boyd, 173 Cal.App.2d 537, 539, 343 P.2d 283; People v. Green, 152 Cal.App.2d 886, 889, 313 P.2d 955. But in the present case there was more than mere presence or association.' There were the additional factors of the discolored tissue on defendant's arms and the apparently abnormal contraction of the pupils of defendant's eyes, when, as we know, in a semi-darkened room the pupils normally tend to dilate. Both these phenomena were in plain view of Officer Olson and observed without any semblance of a search or seizure. We believe these facts, taken together with the officers' knowledge of narcotics activities by his companions, gave the officers probable cause to arrest defendant even before the closer examination of his arm which revealed the scab and puncture wound. (People v. Johnson, 155 Cal.App.2d 369, 372, 317 P.2d 1000; People v. Rodriguez, 140 Cal.App.2d 865, 867, 296 P.2d 38.) If probable cause for the arrest existed prior to the seizing of defendant's arm, that 'search and seizure' was not unlawful merely because it preceded, rather than followed the arrest. (People v. Cockrell, 63 Cal.2d 659, 666--667, 47 Cal.Rptr. 788, 408 P.2d 116.) Sufficiency of Evidence.

The elements of narcotic addiction have been set forth in People v. Victor, 62 Cal.2d 280, 302, 42 Cal.Rptr. 199, 398 P.2d 391. In the present proceeding testimony was adduced from Doctor Lavelle relevant to each of the essential aspects of addiction set forth in Victor--emotional dependence, tolerance, and physical dependence.

With respect to evidence of physical dependence he testified that the puncture wounds on defendant's arm were caused by injection of narcotics. He further testified as follows: 'Q Doctor, did you notice any evidence of narcotic withdrawal? A Yes, I did. Q What was that, Doctor? A The symptoms of a pale, profusely perspiring skin, with increased nasal drip, watery secretion from the mouth. It was this examiner's opinion that this patient is a narcotic user of old and recent date, in that he is in mild stage of narcotic withdrawal at this time.'

When asked if he found any evidence of tolerance to narcotics, Lavelle stated 'Only by inference.' An attempt by the People to have Lavelle explain what he meant by 'inference' was blocked by a defense objection.

In response to the People's inquiry as to any evidence of emotional dependence on narcotics, Lavelle testified: 'A From the fact that the patient had old tracks and recent puncture wounds, that would indicate that he was using narcotics again and again, and in my estimation this indicates emotional dependence on...