People v. Valdez
| Decision Date | 18 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 25441,25441 |
| Citation | 511 P.2d 472,182 Colo. 80 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Daniel VALDEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Jack E. Hanthorn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colo. State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Allan I. Lipson, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant was convicted of possession of narcotic drugs (marijuana), less than 1/2 ounce. We reverse.
A Westminster police officer saw the defendant enter a drive-in theatre by climbing over a fence and thereafter enter an automobile parked inside the theatre. The officer approached the car and asked to see the defendant's admission ticket. When the defendant was unable to produce the ticket, the officer asked him for some identification and the defendant produced his driver's license.
The officer noticed that the defendant had turned himself in the car seat so that his back was toward the officer; that he was reaching into the left breast pocket of his shirt; and that he appeared to be reaching underneath the front seat of his car. At this time, the officer asked the defendant to get out of the car and informed the defendant that he was under arrest for violation of a Westminster ordinance which prohibited the entering of a theatre without paying an admission fee.
The officer then asked the defendant 'what was so important that he felt it necessary to hide what he was doing in his left breast pocket . . ..' When the defendant failed to answer, the officer shined a flashlight into the pocket. He observed some matches, a piece of gum, a cigarette butt from a rolled cigarette and several flakes which appeared to have a greenish tinge. The officer then reached into the pocket, removed and inspected the items, and concluded that the flakes were probably marijuana.
The officer testified that the defendant's pocket was only 3--4 inches deep, that he did not suspect it contained a weapon, and that he looked into the pocket because the defendant's actions 'raised my suspicions as to what might be going on.' The defendant's motion to suppress the admission into evidence of the flakes of marijuana and the rolled cigarette paper was denied. The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the defendant's motion should have been granted.
The People do not--and cannot properly--argue that the items in the defendant's pocket were in 'plain view' or that they were validly seized pursuant to a 'frisk' of the defendant for assaultive weapons. It is the People's position that once the defendant was arrested for entering the theatre without paying the price of admission, he thereafter lost any protection afforded by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures. In other words, the People argue that there are no constitutional limits to the scope of a search incident to an arrest. We disagree.
People v. Watkins, 19 Ill.2d 11, 166 N.E.2d 433 (1960).
In Cowdin v. People, 176 Colo. 466, 491 P.2d 569 (1972), the defendant was arrested by a police officer for reckless driving. A search of the defendant's automobile uncovered a pouch of hashish. We reversed the defendant's conviction for possession of the hashish, holding that a violation of a traffic regulation does not justify a general,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bland, 94SA63
...arrest was directly addressed in Clyne. Clyne, 189 Colo. at 413, 541 P.2d at 72. In that case, we relied upon People v. Valdez, 182 Colo. 80, 511 P.2d 472 (1973), and Cowdin v. People, 176 Colo. 466, 491 P.2d 569 (1971), for guidance on this issue. In Cowdin, this court reversed the defenda......
-
People v. Patnode
...defendant argues that, even if the search was conducted incident to his arrest, under our supreme court's decisions in People v. Valdez, 182 Colo. 80, 511 P.2d 472 (1973), and Cowdin v. People, 176 Colo. 466, 491 P.2d 569 (1971), his arrest for a minor traffic violation did not authorize a ......
-
People v. Bischofberger
...of any privacy interest the arrestee may have. 453 U.S. at 460-61, 101 S.Ct. at 2864 (citations omitted). In People v. Valdez, 182 Colo. 80, 511 P.2d 472 (1973), this court, again addressing the issue in the context of the Fourth Amendment, held that the arrest of a suspect for entering a t......
-
People v. Traubert
...these types of arrests to a protective pat-down search. See e. q. People v. Clyne, 189 Colo. 412, 541 P.2d 71 (1975); People v. Valdez, 182 Colo. 80, 511 P.2d 472 (1973). ...
-
Section 7 SECURITY OF PERSON AND PROPERTY - SEARCHES - SEIZURES - WARRANTS.
...search is justified as incident of lawful incarceration. People v. Overlee, 174 Colo. 202, 483 P.2d 222 (1971); People v. Valdez, 182 Colo. 80, 511 P.2d 472 (1973). The legitimate purposes for inventory searches provide one measure of the limits of reasonable police intrusion. These purpose......
-
Colorado Automobile Searches After Arizona v. Gant
...(Colo. 1971). 53. Id. at 571. 54. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 55. Cowdin, supra note 52 at 571. 56. Id. at 572; People v. Valdez, 511 P.2d 472, 474 (Colo. 1973) (holding that when a person is arrested for minor traffic violations or municipal offenses, the evidence or instrumentalitie......