People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 08 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 7624 |
| Citation | 196 Cal.App.2d 726,16 Cal.Rptr. 836 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Silas WILLIAMS, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Earl Klein, Beverly Hills, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Edmond B. Mamer, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Silas Williams was charged in an information with the crime of having a narcotic in his possession. He was also charged with seven prior felony convictions. He pleaded not guilty, denied the priors and waived a jury trial. It was stipulated by counsel that the case of the People was submitted on the arrest report and that the statements in the report should be given the force and effect of testimony given by authors of the report. Each side reserved the right to offer additional evidence. The People offered none; defendant gave his own testimony. Records of defendant's prior convictions were received.
Williams was found guilty and the allegation of the seven priors were found to be true. Probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to the state prison. In propria persona he noticed an appeal from the judgment and an order denying his motion for a new trial. There was no motion for a new trial.
In the police report there were statements of the following facts. Officers Higgins and Waugh observed defendant in a 1954 Dodge go through a boulevard stop. The officers were forced to apply their brakes violently to avoid a collision. They pursued defendant, using their red lights and repeatedly blowing their horn. Williams failed to stop for approximately one block. During the time the officers were pursuing him, they observed him leaning over and apparently placing something under the passenger's seat. Defendant stopped his car out in the street, away from the curb; he alighted and walked back toward the officers. There was no odor of alcohol on him. When asked if he had been drinking he answered in the negative. The officers then asked him: Williams stated: Defendant was given a traffic citation. The report says: It contained six white-wrapped paper bindles, each containing heroin. Defendant stated: * * *'
In defense Williams denied that he stooped or made any motion in the direction of underneath the front seat. He stated that when asked by the police officer if he was under the influence of narcotics, he replied that he did not use it and did not know what it was. He further denied that he told the officers that he had a 20 dollar a day habit. He claimed that while he was signing the traffic ticket on the hood of the police car one of the officers went to his car and searched it.
Defendant's only contention is that the arrest, search and seizure made without a warrant were unlawful. We find no merit in the contention.
Time and again it has been said that reasonable cause for an arrest is shown when a man of ordinary care and prudence, knowing what the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Maltz
...358, 85 Cal.Rptr. 160, 466 P.2d 704; People v. Berutko, 71 Cal.2d 84, 90--91, 77 Cal.Rptr. 217, 453 P.2d 721; People v. Williams, 196 Cal.App.2d 726, 728, 16 Cal.Rptr. 836.) Nevertheless, the officer 'must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rationa......
-
People v. Superior Court
...police car, rather than waiting for the officers to come to him. We do not know whether, as the court asserts in Williams (196 Cal.App.2d at p. 728, 16 Cal.Rptr. 836), it is 'the customary thing' for a motorist to sit and wait for the officers to approach his car, and we doubt there are eit......
-
People v. Superior Court
...and experience in the devious and cunning devices used by narcotic offenders to conceal their crimes.' (People v. Williams, 196 Cal.App.2d 726, 728, 16 Cal.Rptr. 836, 837) . . 'Furthermore, the officer here did not act upon his own opinion but presented it to a magistrate for his evaluation......
-
People v. Medina
...Court (Kiefer) (1970)3 Cal.3d 807, 827, 91 Cal.Rptr. 729, 742, 478 P.2d 449, 462, quoting with approval from People v. Williams (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 726, 728, 16 Cal.Rptr. 836.) The circumstances and facts within Officer Miller's knowledge, and the reasonably trustworthy information upon w......