*1 Dist., [Crim. Nо. 15660. Second Div. Four. Jan. 1970.] PEOPLE, Plaintiff and THE Appellant, KNIGHT,
RONALD EDWARD Defendant and Respondent.
Counsel James, General, E. Assistant Attorney William Attorney
Thomas C. Lynch, General, and B. J. Wood Harry Harry Evelle District Younger, Attorney, Sondheim, for Plaintiff and District Attorneys, Apрellant. Deputy Swank, Defender, John Scott Public Damon R. Edwin Richard S. Buckley, Defenders, McCormick, for L. Public Defendant and James Deputy Respondent.
Opinion Code, (under
KINGSLEY, J. Pen. This taken by appeal 7) a against an order dismissing burglary subd. from § Code, (under Pen. of defendant’s motion granting defendant following 1538.5) the result of an search illegal to evidence obtained as suppress § and seizure. No exists as to the facts. dispute was with man young
The car in which defendant was another riding Officer a few after the received report Miller minutes officer stopped between in a lot that its had been cars walking parking occupants car were burglars. in manner which aroused a acting suspicion they not, however, did for arrest. Officer The report provide probable his while Miller detained defendant and about minutes companion them, he talking talked to about the them While report. ran a check he learned officer routine radio check on them. From the radio defendant’s arrest. that thеre was an warrant for outstanding felony A search of reliance warrant the officer arrested defendant. upon defendant incident to the disclosed evidence suppressed result of defendant’s motion under section 1538.5. court before the for the
It was stipulated purpose proceedings below, .(Patchett) the facts initially investigated which led to the issuance of.the fеlony against defendant which defendant; cause to arrest supported that he the facts presented cause to a district constituting probable deputy attorney. based on and beliеf” and deputy “information prepared complaint, did not set forth therein the facts the officer’s cause. constituting Although officer had investigating to the all of the neces- given deputy *3 facts, the sary (for complaint executed reasons not actually apparent on record) this (Hatcher) another officer and it is not contended that Hatcher had any personal knowledge facts known to Patchett or even that he had any such as have knowledge may come to him except from the the deputy The warrant prepared was based complaint. on the entirely executed; thus drafted and complaint the arrest occurred several months after the warrant; issuance of the the did arresting officer not, himself, have probable сause to arrest the defendant acted solely on the basis the of warrant. outstanding
Defendant as argues follows: a based on “information and belief” and which does not allege any faсts from which the underlying magistrate- may that independently conclude there is cause to probable believe that defendant offense, committed the alleged is insufficient and will not an warrant, аrrest support or an arrest based on such a warrant. (People v. (1968) Sesslin 68 409, Cal.2d 418 321].) [67 439 P.2d Cal.Rptr. An arrest bemay justified, an invalid where the despite arresting officer had cause probable sufficient tо a warrantless arrest. support (People v. 436, Chimel (1968) 68 Cal.2d 421, 440-442 Cal.Rptr. [67 333], 439 P.2d revd. on other in Chimel grounds (1969) v. California U.S. 752 2034].) The have con- People Sesslin, ceded that the warrant supra, was invalid under that the arrеst- ing officer lacked cause to probable arrest defendant.
The contend that the arrest should nevertheless be held valid People because the officer who initiated the which led to the issuance investigation cause; the warrant had the that all that should be required probable arrest, to the is a that in the required finding someone support department cause which the probable “can be deemed within line of connection, communication leading to the arrest.” In this it is up asserted Chimel, that the the People fact arresting supra, officer in to hаppened be officer who investigated case and therefore himself had probable cause defendant, to arrest the was not the critical factor in the court’s finding that the arrest was legal invalid warrant. despite that,
We out Chimel point clearly, does not holding compel arrest in the case at bench (and was valid. The of Chimel reasoning the cases on which that rеlies) that to invalidate an arrest which officer had be because the probable would otherwise arresting legal—i.e., secured a defect in an arrest warrant because of cause arrest—simply the use of officer, discourage bad since it would would be policy to make would cause proceed warrants. The having probable simply (See People not tаke the chance of warrant. securing the arrest and Chimel, the arrest to at in Chimel found supra, 440-441.) The court pp. cause. Here the because officer who made it had legal causе, urged officer lacked and the considerations arresting policy in Chimel are not present. cases the line of which stand proposition cite through the basis of made
that an officer on may validly requests to is such radio. Pointed official communication channels the fact all the show is that the officer who made need (See People v. Lara had the to do so. rеquest required probable 202].) (1967) 67 432 P.2d *4 that, since official channels are valid conduits of argued communication cause, where, here, as the for an officer initiating probable request arrest, arrest warrant has cause for and thereafter a com there is probable warrant, the fact the through munication official channels to arrest on the warrant for not affect thе may invalid one reason or another should of the arrest. legality People Groves In argument conclude that that must prevail.
We
985], a
745,
P.2d
(1969)
Cal.Rptr.
1196 [80
of
from coin tele-
had
a series
thefts
investigated
officer in
Francisco
San
cause, based on
and,
had
as a result of
investigation,
phones
of those thefts.
witnesses,
guilty
credible
to believe Groves
interviews with
involved, was
which,
herein
a
like
complaint
He executed
not
forth the
belief”
which did
set
on
and
based
“information
solely
here,
issued,
A warrant
data
the officer.
underlying
possessed
of the
notice
Telegraphic
on the basis of that defective
solely
complaint.
a
Los
in Los Angeles
issuance of that warrant was sent to police
warrant, and
officer,
on the basis of
solely
telegraphic
Angeles
acting
facts, arrested
any
underlying
who had
of
of
no personal knowledge
a
con-
rejecting
evidence.
incriminating
Groves.
produced
raising
in
the invalidity
that Groves’ trial counsel was
not
tention
inadequate
1199);
the issue
(at
said
“Although
Court
p.
Supreme
in
litigated
warrant was not
an arrest
of
cause make
without
court,
in
indicates that
the trial
evidence
the record
without
so,
an arrеst
it
have justified
to do
might easily
been called upon
436, 441-442
(1968)
[67
v. Chimel
68 Cal.2d
(See People
a warrant.
333],
439 P.2d
revd. on other
Chimel v.
grounds,
Cali
(1969)
The order of dismissal reversed with directions to the court superior to vacate its order suppressing the evidence.
Files,
J.,P.
concurred.
Groves,
JEFFERSON, J., Dissenting.
The test used
to establish
of an arrest where the arrest
legality
Chimel,
warrant turns out to be invalid
as stated in
68
P.2d
Chimel
reversed on other
in
grounds
333]
California,