People v. West
| Citation | 300 P.2d 729,144 Cal.App.2d 214 |
| Decision Date | 27 August 1956 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 5653 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Billy La Vally WEST, Defendant and Respondent. |
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., S. Ernest Roll, Dist. Atty., Jere J. Sullivan, Fred N. Whichello, Lewis Watnich, Deputy Dist. Attys., Los Angeles, for appellant.
Harry Weiss, Los Angeles, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the People from an order setting aside an information pursuant to the defendant's motion under Penal Code section 995.
In an information filed by the District Attorney of the county of Los Angeles, the defendant was charged with the crime of burglary, in violation of section 459 of the Penal Code, in that on or about January 28, 1956, he wilfully entered an automobile of William J. Baisley, the doors of which automobile were locked.
A fair resume to the facts, as testified to, is as follows: William J. Baisley was the owner of a 1956 Oldsmobile automobile. On Saturday, January 28, 1956, at about five forty-five o'clock p. m., he parked his car in a parking lot at the Alpha Beta Market on Rodeo Road. He locked the doors and windows of the car, left it in a good condition, but unattended, and took the keys with him. In about one-half hour he returned and the two windows on the driver's side on the front door were broken. When he left the automobile there were some clothes in it which had just been received from the 'Excell' cleaners; when he returned, the clothes were gone. The clothing consisted of a variety of pants, a big, heavy sheep-lined jacket, a brown checked sport jacket and a light brown gabardine jacket, all of the value of about $200. No permission or authority was given to the defendant to open the automobile, or to take anything therefrom.
On the next Tuesday, the police returned one-half of the clothing taken, including a heavy black coat, which belonged to William J. Baisley's sister-in-law, some women's pedal pushers and some slacks. The trousers contained a cleaner's tab or marker which read 'William Baisley, 8-197-6'. On another item there was a tab or marker with the name 'Excell' written thereon, and 'H. Baisley', being the name of Mr. Baisley's sister-in-law.
Wallace R. Chittenden testified that he was a police officer and about 9:20 o'clock p. m., just before the arrest, he saw the defendant walking esaterly on Santa Barbara Street, approaching Paloma Street, on the darker portion of the sidewalk, carrying a large bundle of clothing carelessly wadded together. When the officer started to approach the defendant he started to walk away. The defendant then placed the clothing on the hood of the police car and started to unwrap the bundle or 'tangled wad', and showed the officers some of the clothing. There apparently was no paper or string to bind the bundle to together.
At the time and occasion above set forth, the officers did not have a report of the particular burglary of the Baisley automobile. However, the officers did have reports of numerous burglaries in the area which they were then patrolling.
The officers thereupon asked the defendant where he had obtained the garments and he said that they belonged to him and that he had just taken them out of the Adams Cleaner and was en route home from the Adams Cleaner with the cleaning. The defendant was asked again if the clothing was his and he answered, 'Yes'. The officer then asked him if he could put some of the clothing next to him to see if the items fitted, and he said that he would. He put up a pair of the trousers next to him and they did not appear to 'come anywhere near fitting the defendant'. The officers then saw that the most of the clothing was women's apparel, and thereupon placed the defendant under arrest.
The defendant was then taken to the police station and before he was booked, the officers received information of the burglary of the Bisley car, listing Baisley as a victim and describing along with it the clothing which was in the defendant's possession. The witness had observed the name Baisley on the marker tabs and the clothing described as stolen, and with this information booked the defendant for burglary.
On voir dire examination, the witness said he did not have a warrant or a report of a burglary which had occurred the particular night of the arrest. The officer further testified:
The officer further testified that he believed that the defendant put the clothes down voluntarily, stating, '* * * he couldn't get to his identification without putting them down'. During this time, and during the conversation, the defendant was not under arrest.
The pedal pushers were identified as having been stolen from the Baisley car and as one of the garments that the defendant put down on the police car. There was attached the tab or marker, marked 'Excell', with 'Baisley' written in ink thereon. A pair of men's slacks had the name 'William Baisley' written on an Excell tab marker, and were identified as having been stolen and as one of the items that the defendant had at the time and place above set forth.
We are of the conclusion that the defendant was legally committed.
There were suspicious circumstances in the situation which confronted the officers. Ordinarily, a person does not walk down the dark side of a sidewalk at night with clothes just newly picked up from the cleaners, carelessly wadded and wrapped together in an indiscriminate bundle. The officers started to walk toward the defendant and as they did so, the defendant started to walk away. The officers then pursued a reasonable inquiry and from the answers given by the defendant to proper questions put by the officers, it was fairly obvious that the defendant was not telling the truth with reference to the wearing apparel. He said at first that the clothes were his. He then demonstrated that the clothes did not fit him at all--it was further demonstrated that the most of the wearing apparel was women's, and that the cleaner's mark on the clothes was not 'Adams Cleaners', but 'Excell Cleaners'. Further, the defendant changed his story to state that he had found the clothes when a taxi cab had pulled away. All of this reasonably led the officers to believe, and properly so, that the property was stolen, and under such circumstances the arrest was lawful.
Section 836 of the Penal Code provides, among other things, when a police officer can make an arrest. 1
It was said in People v. Jaurequi, 142 Cal.App.2d 555, at page 559, 298 P.2d 896, at page 899:
'It is settled that reasonable cause to justify an arrest is not necessarily limited to evidence which would be admissible at the trial on the issue of guilt, People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652, 656, 290 P.2d 535; Willson v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 291, 294 P.2d 36. 'The term, reasonable or probable cause, has been defined: 'By 'reasonable or probable cause' is meant such a state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary caution or prudence to believe, and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion, that the person accused is guilty.' In re McCarty, 140 Cal.App. 473, 474, 35 P.2d 568.
People v. Novell, 54 Cal.App.2d 621, 623-624, 129 P.2d 453, 454.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Willard
...v. Green (1965) 235 A.C.A. 652, 657, 45 Cal.Rptr. 371. For other cases using the same definition of 'search' see: People v. West (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 214, 219, 300 P.2d 729; People v. Ambrose (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 513, 522-523, 318 P.2d 181; People v. Spicer (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 678, 683,......
-
Ker v. State of California
...746, 71 L.Ed. 1202 (1927); United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 465, 52 S.Ct. 420, 423, 76 L.Ed. 877 (1932); People v. West, 144 Cal.App.2d 214, 300 P.2d 729 (1956). Therefore, while California law does not require that an arrest precede an incidental search as long as probable cause e......
-
People v. Toulson
...687, 689, 68 Cal.Rptr. 281.) This was not a search. (People v. Bouchard, 161 Cal.App.2d 302, 305, 326 P.2d 646; People v. West, 144 Cal.App.2d 214, 219, 300 P.2d 729.) Probable cause to arrest defendant existed prior to the officer's examination of the contents of the wax bag. The discovery......
-
Gross v. State
...(1927); United States v. Lefkowitz, 285 U.S. 452, 465, 52 S.Ct. 420, 423, 76 L.Ed. 877 [882, 82 A.L.R. 775] (1932); People v. West, 144 Cal.App.2d 214, 300 P.2d 729 (1956). Therefore, while California law does not require that an arrest precede an incidental search as long as probable cause......