People v. Wright, Cr. 3324

• Decision Date: 31 July 1957
• Docket Number: Cr. 3324
• Citation: 153 Cal.App.2d 35,313 P.2d 868
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Forrest Benjamin WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 868

313 P.2d 868

153 Cal.App.2d 35

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Forrest Benjamin WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 3324.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

July 31, 1957.

George Nye, Public Defender of Alameda County, and Robert D. Dunivan, Asst. Public Defender, Oakland Cal. for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Marvin J. Christiansen, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal. for respondent.

LERNHART, Justice pro tem.

Defendant was charged by information in three counts, one of receiving stolen goods, one of burglary, and one of possession of morphine. On trial to the court without a jury, a jury having been waived, he was found guilty of receiving stolen goods and of possession of narcotics, and not guilty of burglary. Defendant appeals. His only contention is that the trial court erred in receiving as evidence articles he claims to have been procured by illegal search and seizure.

Early in the morning of January 27, 1956, a deputy sheriff attached to the Eden Township Station of the Alameda County sheriff's office was notified that the Washington Township Station of the same office had a warrant for appellant's arrest for violation of Vehicle Code Section 332 (driving after refusal, suspension or revocation of license), a misdemeanor. He and his partner were directed to meet a Hayward police officer who told them that appellant was in a Pontiac sedanette parked in the driveway of a specified house. At about 5 o'clock a. m., the deputy drove to the described location and saw a man lying in the front seat of the car. The deputy walked up the driveway, shone his flashlight into the car and saw appellant asleep in the front seat. Without opening the door or entering the car, the deputy turned his light to the rear, and there saw a large quantity of Men's clothing on the seat and floor. These articles were placed as though they 'had just been thrown back there.' They were not wrapped and were folded and bore tags, 'as they would appear on the counter in a haberdashery.' The officer then opened the door, awakened appellant, and asked him if he were Forrest Wright. Upon receiving an affirmative answer, the officer told him that a warrant had been issued 'charging him with 332 of the California Vehicle Code and he was under arrest.' The officer then took appellant to the police car, which both entered. The officer's partner started to drive the police car away. It had travelled but a few feet when a Hayward police officer drove up and spoke to the two deputies. The arresting deputy testified 'the officer stated that, he says--he stated, 'You know who this fellow is, don't you?' and I said, 'Yes.' He says, 'he is a known burglar.' And I said, 'Yes.' and at that point I decided to go back to the car and get the articles in the car and bring them with me.' Leaving the prisoner in the police car with his fellow deputy, the arresting deputy then returned to appellant's car, which had not been out of sight of the deputies, and took from it the articles of men's clothing. Investigation revealed that they had been stolen from the parked car of a salesman earlier the same night. Before opening the car door the first time, he had seen a glove 'sticking out' from under the front seat. He now removed the front seat and took this glove and another from beneath it. A vial containing morphine was found inside one of the gloves. The clothing and the contents of the glove were admitted in evidence over appellant's objection. Neither the arresting deputy not his partner had possession of the misdemeanor warrant. In fact, it was in another station than that to which these deputies were assigned.

Appellant argues that an arrest pursuant to a misdemeanor warrant is valid only when the arresting officer or one acting with him has custody of the warrant. Thus, he argues, the arrest here made was unauthorized. He then contends that the search of the automobile and the seizure of the articles in it must fall, because such search and seizure were but incidental to the assertedly improper arrest. Upon these premises, he concludes that the articles taken from the car were inadmissible, and that the error in admitting them in evidence requires reversal.

We find no California case directly determining whether a warrant issued on a misdemeanor charge must be in the actual or constructive possession of the arresting officer. The weight of authority in other jurisdictions seems to require such possession. However, we deem it unnecessary to determine this question, since we have concluded that seizure of the goods in the car was valid, wholly independently of the arrest.

Looking through the window of a home (People v. Moore, 140 Cal.App.2d 870, 295 P.2d 969) or office (People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 755, 290 P.2d 855) or peering through the mail chute of an office (People v. Martin, supra) does not constitute an unreasonable search. It seems clear that looking through the windows of a parked automobile is, if there be any distinction, even less reprehensible.

We see no merit in the suggestion that the deputy, in approaching the car closely enough to observe its interior, was a trespasser. The car was parked in a driveway, a few feet off the street. There is no showing as to ownership of the driveway. The deputy testified that from the street he could see the car and a man lying in it. At 5 a. m., it seems by no means unreasonable to approach such a car closely enough for a careful view of its occupant. See People v. Blodgett, 46 Cal.2d 114, 293 P.2d 57. Mere presence upon the land of another does not appear to bar reliance and action upon what is seen from such a vantage point. This question is not discussed in People v. Moore, supra, 140 Cal.App.2d 870, 295 P.2d 969, where police officers looked into a house through the apertures in venetian blinds covering the window of a home, or in People v. Martin, supra, 45 Cal.2d 755, 290 P.2d 855, where the second observation of def...