Raymond v. Superior Court

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtFRIEDMAN; BRAY
Citation96 Cal.Rptr. 678,19 Cal.App.3d 321
PartiesCharles Richard RAYMOND, Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, For the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Respondent; PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 13064.
Decision Date18 August 1971

Page 678

96 Cal.Rptr. 678
19 Cal.App.3d 321
Charles Richard RAYMOND, Petitioner,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, For the COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Respondent;
PEOPLE of the State of California, Real Party in Interest.
Civ. 13064.
Court of Appeal, Third District, California.
Aug. 18, 1971.
Hearing Denied Oct. 14, 1971.

Page 679

[19 Cal.App.3d 323] Stuart A. Brody, Sacramento, for petitioner.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen. by Daniel J. Kremer and Nelson P. Kempsky, Deputy Attys. Gen., Sacramento, for real party in interest.

[19 Cal.App.3d 324] FRIEDMAN, Acting Presiding Justice.

Petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the superior court from taking further proceedings on an information charging him with marijuana possession. His motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 was denied by that court. His appropriate remedy is not prohibition, but a writ of mandate directing suppression. (Greven v. Superior Court, 71 Cal.2d 287, 295, 78 Cal.Rptr. 504, 455 P.2d 432; Ojeda v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.App.3d 909, 921, 91 Cal.Rptr. 145.) We so treat it.

Petitioner's 12-year-old-son, Bill, discovered marijuana in the dresser drawers of his father's bedroom. He telephoned the sheriff's office and arranged to meet a representative of the sheriff at his school. Accordingly, Bill and Sergeant Leeper of the sheriff's office conferred in the office of the vice principal of the junior high school attended by Bill. Some months previously, he told the officer, he had gone into his father's bedroom and found seeds and a leafy substance in a dresser drawer. He showed some of the substance to a deputy sheriff who lived nearby. The deputy told Bill that the material was marijuana and disposed of it. Since then, the boy narrated, he had looked into the dresser drawers many times and found hand-rolled cigarettes there along with plastic bags of marijuana. He further reported that his father kept ounce scales in the bedroom. The boy volunteered to get Sergeant Leeper a sample of marijuana from the bedroom but the officer declined until he could ascertain the validity of such a procedure.

The next morning, December 4, 1970, Sergeant Leeper met Bill again. He told Bill it would be legal to have him obtain some evidence. Bill expressed his willingness to get the officer a sample of marijuana from his father's dresser drawer. Bill told the sergeant that his residence was too far away to walk; that he could not get the sample if his mother were home; that she did not go to work until 4:00 in the afternoon, but might now be out having her hair done. Sergeant Leeper telephoned Bill's house. There was no answer. He then drove Bill to the house. En route the boy asked the sergeant how much he was to get and Leeper indicated an approximate

Page 680

quantity and suggested that he put the marijuana sample into one of his father's plastic bags. When they arrived at the house the officer waited in the car while Bill went inside. In a few moments he came out with a plastic bag containing marijuana seeds and a useable amount of marijuana leaf. Leeper took the boy back to school. He had the sample, analyzed by a criminalist, who confirmed its character. Later that day the sergeant signed an affidavit for a search warrant, which incorporated by reference his [19 Cal.App.3d 325] written report of the events. A warrant was obtained and executed that afternoon, and a quantity of marijuana and related paraphernalia were seized in petitioner's home.

At the hearing of the suppression motion Bill testified that he was not 'supposed' to enter his father's bedroom. He was not asked whether he told Sergeant Leeper of that restriction.

Petitioner's motion to suppress left some uncertainty as to the objective of his motion. Although, strictly speaking, his written motion sought suppression of marijuana taken 'by various levying officers,' his accompanying points and authorities made it quite plain that the motion sought suppression of the marijuana sample which Bill had delivered to the officer, as well as the contraband later seized under the search warrant.

By restricting government intrusion into the privacy of the family home, the Fourth Amendment conceivably incorporates some elements of the biblical Fifth Commandment. We need not embark on that inquiry because established Fourth Amendment standards...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • People v. Chapman, Cr. 22776
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 26, 1984
    ...IV. "A search warrant obtained upon information acquired by an illegal search is itself invalid." (Raymond v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 321, 326, 96 Cal.Rptr. 678, citing People v. Roberts (1956) 47 Cal.2d 374, 377, 303 P.2d 721; see also People v. Carswell (1959) 51 Cal.2d [679 P......
  • People v. Smith, Cr. 25843
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 1975
    ...of criminal laws. (Cf. Stapleton v. Superior Court, 70 Cal.2d 97, 100-102, 73 Cal.Rptr. 575, 447 P.2d 967; Raymond v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.3d 321, 325-326, 96 Cal.Rptr. 678; People v. Topp, 40 Cal.App.3d 372, 377-378, 114 Cal.Rptr. Second, Officer Lord stood 'silently by' during Dolso......
  • People v. Laursen
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 21, 1972
    ...681, 86 Cal.Rptr. 701; People v. Superior Court (Arketa) (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 122, 89 Cal.Rptr. 316; Raymond v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 321, 96 Cal.Rptr. Undoubtedly the tenuous tenancy arrangement between appellant and Graham was terminated when, knowing he had been involved in......
  • People v. Cook, Cr. 19804
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • September 8, 1978
    ...602, 606-607, 335 P.2d 99; Lohman v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 894, 898, 138 Cal.Rptr. 403; Raymond v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 321, 326-327, 96 Cal.Rptr. 678; People v. Superior Court (Flynn) (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 489, 492, 79 Cal.Rptr. 904.) We could therefore return ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • People v. Chapman, Cr. 22776
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 26, 1984
    ...search warrant obtained upon information acquired by an illegal search is itself invalid." (Raymond v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 321, 326, 96 Cal.Rptr. 678, citing People v. Roberts (1956) 47 Cal.2d 374, 377, 303 P.2d 721; see also People v. Carswell (1959) 51 Cal.2d [679 P.2......
  • People v. Smith, Cr. 25843
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • October 28, 1975
    ...of criminal laws. (Cf. Stapleton v. Superior Court, 70 Cal.2d 97, 100-102, 73 Cal.Rptr. 575, 447 P.2d 967; Raymond v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.3d 321, 325-326, 96 Cal.Rptr. 678; People v. Topp, 40 Cal.App.3d 372, 377-378, 114 Cal.Rptr. Second, Officer Lord stood 'silently by' during Dolso......
  • People v. Laursen
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 21, 1972
    ...681, 86 Cal.Rptr. 701; People v. Superior Court (Arketa) (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 122, 89 Cal.Rptr. 316; Raymond v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 321, 96 Cal.Rptr. Undoubtedly the tenuous tenancy arrangement between appellant and Graham was terminated when, knowing he had been involved in......
  • People v. Cook, Cr. 19804
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • September 8, 1978
    ...602, 606-607, 335 P.2d 99; Lohman v. Superior Court (1977) 69 Cal.App.3d 894, 898, 138 Cal.Rptr. 403; Raymond v. Superior Court (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 321, 326-327, 96 Cal.Rptr. 678; People v. Superior Court (Flynn) (1969) 275 Cal.App.2d 489, 492, 79 Cal.Rptr. 904.) We could therefore return ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT