People v. Williams, Cr. 6595

• Decision Date: 03 December 1959
• Docket Number: Cr. 6595
• Citation: 175 Cal.App.2d 774,1 Cal.Rptr. 44
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE of State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mary Ellen WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 44

1 Cal.Rptr. 44

175 Cal.App.2d 774

PEOPLE of State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Mary Ellen WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 6595.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 1, California.

Dec. 3, 1959.

Minsky, Garber & Rudof, Albert C. Garber, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jack K. Weber, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BISHOP, Justice pro tem.

We have concluded that the failure of the prosecution to reveal the name of an informer may not be taken advantage of by the defendant to escape the judgment that followed her conviction on a charge of illegal possession of heroin. Upon her appeal from the judgment, it is to be affirmed, therefore.

The defendant put on no defense, so our facts come from the unchallenged testimony of the People's witnesses. On each of the last two days of July, some deputies sheriff watched the door of the place where the defendant resided, and saw persons known to them to be drug addicts, enter and depart. On the last day of the month, after watching for a brief time, they knocked on the door, and 'heard a swift movement toward * * * the location where the bath room was located.' They then forced an entrance (without the aid of a search warrant) and observed the defendant 'rushing through the hallway to the bathroom.' The officers, too, rushed, and pulled the defendant away from the flushing toilet, but were too late to rescue anything from it. However, 'white residue' appeared on the defendant's leg and knee, and a small quantity, but sufficient, was gathered up from the hallway that led to the bathroom, and this was placed in a wax paper. This white residue proved to be heroin.

That which we believe to be the crucial question on this appeal, is presented by the facts just narrated. It is: did officers have reasonable cause to believe that a felony was being committed, justifying them in entering without a warrant, arresting the defendant, and gathering in the evidence? We give an affirmative answer to this question. The coming and going, from defendant's residence, of not just one, but of several known addicts was a circumstance that would justify the inference that here was a source of the supply that they sought in common. Then, a knock on a door of a residence is not usually followed by the resident rushing to the bathroom. Bathrooms have been used so frequently as the means of making intoxicating liquor disappear, and successfully concealing the presence of other contraband articles, that police officers, who are at the door of a place where they have rason to believe that narcotics are to be had, act reasonably in forcing their way in, when the noise within led them to believe that the evidence they sought was being destroyed. No two situations are identical, but for comments on situations with similar elements, see: People v. Maddox, 1956, 46 Cal.2d 301, 306, 294 P.2d 6, 9; People v. Ruiz, 1956, 146 Cal.App.2d 630, 634, 304 P.2d 175, 177; and People v. White, 1959, 167 Cal.App.2d 794, 798, 334 P.2d 963,...