People v. Zubia, Cr. 6295
| Decision Date | 30 December 1958 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6295 |
| Citation | 166 Cal.App.2d 620,333 P.2d 349 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Carlos Zapata ZUBIA and Seferino Ralph Guzman, Defendants, Seferino Ralph Guzman, Defendant and Appellant. |
John H. Marshall, Los Angeles, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant Guzman and one Zubia were accused of unlawfully possessing marijuana. In a nonjury trial, they were convicted. Guzman appeals from the judgment and the order denying his motion for a new trial.
Appellant contends that the court erred in receiving the marijuana in evidence. His argument is that the marijuana was obtained by unlawful search and seizure.
Officer Boyle testified that on December 26, 1957, about 12:45 p. m., while he was driving an automobile south on Arroyo Boulevard, he observed a Chrysler automobile that was also traveling south on that boulevard. He followed the Chrysler about six blocks in an area on the boulevard where there are many sharp curves. When the Chrysler slowed down on some of the curves, he did not see the stop light on the Chrysler 'light up.' He thought the Chrysler was being driven in violation of section 637(a) of the Vehicle Code (). When he turned the automobile siren and red light on, the Chrysler stopped, and he (witness) stopped the police automobile beside the Chrysler. Defendant Guzman got out of the Chrysler on the 'driver's side' and approached the police automobile. (Guzman will be referred to as the defendant.) When he (officer) asked defendant for his driver's license, defendant produced the license and asked why he had been stopped. The officer replied that he had been stopped for violation of section 637(a) of the Vehicle Code. Defendant said that he had been stopped before by the police, and he planned to have the stop light fixed. The officer asked defendant if he had any weapons in the automobile. Defendant said that he did not have any weapons in the automobile and, 'If you wish, you may look in the car--I do not have any weapons.' As the officer approached the Chrysler from the left side, defendant jumped into that automobile and crawled across the front seat on his knees. The seat was covered with a blanket, and there were two paper sacks on the blanket about the center of the seat. While defendant was crawling across the seat he moved the blanket with his knees and the blanket covered the sacks. The officer unrolled the blanket, removed the sacks, and asked defendant what the sacks were. He replied that 'they' were his lunch. The officer opened the sacks. One sack contained a salt shaker and the other sack contained a portion of a sandwich and a rolled-up paper sack. The rolled-up sack contained a small portion of wax paper in which there was a green leafy substance. The officer thought that the substance might be marijuana. He showed the leafy substance to the two defendants and 'they' said that 'they knew nothing of it.' The officer found a package of cigarette papers in the glove compartment of the Chrysler, and found another package of cigarette papers in a pocket of defendant Guzman's pants.
On cross-examination, Officer Boyle testified that he did not have a warrant for the arrest of either defendant. The question he asked Guzman regarding weapons was a routine question. There had been many 'burglaries of guns and so forth in broad daylight' in the neighborhood where the arrest was made, and Guzman, 'according to his driver's license,' did not live in that neighborhood.
The leafy substance which was in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nebbitt
...defective equipment or that which fails to comply with the provisions of the Vehicle Code, such as faulty stop signals (People v. Zubia, 166 Cal.App.2d 620, 333 P.2d 349), defective taillights (People v. Sanson, 156 Cal.App.2d 250, 319 P.2d 422), and the like. By reason of the failure of th......
-
People v. Stevenson
...of the occupants may justify a search of the vehicle. (People v. Blodgett (1956) 46 Cal.2d 114, 117, 293 P.2d 57; People v. Zubia (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 620, 333 P.2d 349; People v. Cantley (1958) 163 Cal.App.2d 762, 767, 329 P.2d 993; People v. Sanson (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 250, 253, 319 P.2......
-
People v. Hurst
...was valid. Cf. People v. Blodgett, 46 Cal.2d 114, 293 P.2d 57; People v. Sanson, 156 Cal.App.2d 250, 319 P.2d 422; People v. Zubia, 166 Cal.App.2d 620, 333 P.2d 349. Defendant asserts that the reasonableness of the officers' actions must be judged solely on what they knew when they stepped ......
-
People v. Elliott, Cr. 7269
...because of the absence of an operating rear light on his vehicle, a violation of section 24600 of the Vehicle Code. People v. Zubia, 166 Cal.App.2d 620, 622, 333 P.2d 349; People v. Sanson, 156 Cal.App.2d 250, 253, 319 P.2d 422; see People v. Smith, 141 Cal.App.2d 399, 401, 296 P.2d 913; Pe......