No. 5917 | Nev. | Sep 9, 1969
By the Court,
Jack Melvin Crown, arrested and charged with having in his possession a narcotic drug, appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus which he asserted on the basis that the state failed to present evidence to the grand jury sufficient to constitute probable cause. He further complained that the tactics of the law enforcement officers were objectionable.
Sheila Summers and Ben Jiminez, special agents working for the Reno Police Department, met and accompanied Robert Yance to his motel room in Reno. Jack Crown was in the room when they arrived. From a closet Yance produced a quantity of marijuana, rolled a cigarette and offered it to the police agents after lighting it. The “joint” of marijuana was passed around from Yance to Jim, to Sheila, to Crown, back to Sheila from Crown, and then to Yance. Such was the testimony before the grand jury.
The lower court found that the evidence was sufficient to constitute probable cause and we agree.
1. Our most recent cases relating to probable cause in possession of narcotics cases were cited and need not be repeated. They fit the facts in this case, hence further discussion is unnecessary. Maskaly v. State, 85 Nev. 111" court="Nev." date_filed="1969-02-18" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/maskaly-v-state-1413462?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1413462">85 Nev. 111, 450 P.2d 790 (1969); Glosen and Pearson v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 145" court="Nev." date_filed="1969-03-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/glosen-v-sheriff-of-washoe-county-1434616?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1434616">85 Nev. 145, 451 P.2d 841 (1969); Glosen and Crown v. Sheriff, 85 Nev. 166" court="Nev." date_filed="1969-03-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/glosen-v-sheriff-of-washoe-county-1434607?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1434607">85 Nev. 166, 451 P.2d 843 (1969).
2. The record is not clear as to what tactics used by the law enforcement people appellant claims amounted to dirty pool. There is some implication that Sheila used her sexual
We find no merit in this appeal.
Affirmed.