People v. Contreras

14 Citing cases

  1. People v. Gallegos

    62 Cal.2d 176 (Cal. 1964)   Cited 77 times
    In Gallegos, police — acting without a warrant — placed an apartment under surveillance and arrested the defendant when he attempted to enter the apartment.

    In any event the record does not disclose and no claim is made that he was detained as a possible parole violator or that his premises were searched for that reason. [2] Although under ordinary circumstances a parolee's place of residence may be searched prior to an arrest (see In re Ferguson, 55 Cal.2d 663, 670 [ 12 Cal.Rptr. 753, 361 P.2d 417]; People v. Contreras, 154 Cal.App.2d 321, 325 [ 315 P.2d 916]), in the instant case the status of the defendant as a parolee was not relied upon by the arresting officer. Hence, lacking evidence in this regard, the search of defendant's premises which immediately followed the arrest, and the results thereof, could not be utilized in justification of the arrest.

  2. People v. Carrillo

    64 Cal.2d 387 (Cal. 1966)   Cited 61 times
    In People v. Carrillo, 64 Cal.2d 387 [ 50 Cal.Rptr. 185, 412 P.2d 377], the court dealt with a prison parolee who had a prior narcotic conviction and had missed a Nalline test.

    The fact that defendant was a parole violator does not alter the result. Whatever disabilities he may be subjected to because of his parole status (see People v. Denne, 141 Cal.App.2d 499 [ 297 P.2d 451]; People v. Contreras, 154 Cal.App.2d 321 [ 315 P.2d 916]; People v. Hernandez, 229 Cal.App.2d 143 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 100]) the point is that the police obtained the evidence by violating the constitutional rights of Mrs. Juarez, and, therefore, of defendant. As was said in People v. Martin, 45 Cal.2d 755, 761 [ 290 P.2d 855], the right to object to the use of illegally secured evidence rests "not on a violation of his . . . [defendant's] own constitutional rights, but on the ground that the government must not be allowed to profit by its own wrong and thus encouraged in the lawless enforcement of the law.

  3. People v. Kanos

    14 Cal.App.3d 642 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 33 times
    Finding of a sport coat in the hall closet in the apartment where the defendant lived was substantial evidence to show that the coat belonged to the defendant

    (4) Nor does the mere fact that the agents were accompanied by police officers detract from the legality of the search. ( People v. Coffman, 2 Cal.App.3d 681, 688 [ 82 Cal.Rptr. 782]; People v. Thompson, supra, at p. 85; People v. Quilon, supra, 245 Cal.App.2d 624, 627; People v. Contreras, 154 Cal.App.2d 321, 326 [ 315 P.2d 916].) The arrest and search were not a pretext for discovering evidence for a narcotics prosecution.

  4. People v. Gilkey

    6 Cal.App.3d 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 11 times

    The fact that he was cooperating with ordinary peace officers does not mean that he was not performing, simultaneously, the duties of his own office. ( People v. Quilon, supra, at p. 627; People v. Hernandez, 229 Cal.App.2d 143 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 100]; People v. Contreras, 154 Cal.App.2d 321 [ 315 P.2d 916]; People v. Triche, 148 Cal.App.2d 198 [ 306 P.2d 616].) In the nature of things, parole violations frequently must be brought to the attention of parole officers by regular police officers.

  5. In re Cleaver

    266 Cal.App.2d 143 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 10 times

    (See In re Jones, 57 Cal.2d 860, 862 [ 22 Cal.Rptr. 478, 372 P.2d 310].)" ( People v. Hernandez (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 143, 149 [ 40 Cal.Rptr. 100].) For other expositions of the rights and disabilities of a parolee reference is made to People v. Thompson (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 76, 84-85 [ 60 Cal.Rptr. 203]; Aguilera v. California Dept. of Corrections (1966) 247 Cal.App.2d 150, 151 [ 55 Cal.Rptr. 292]; People v. Quilon (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 624, 627 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 294]; People v. Giles (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 643, 646-647 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 758]; and People v. Contreras (1957) 154 Cal.App.2d 321, 325 [ 315 P.2d 916]; but cf. People v. Gallegos (1964) 62 Cal.2d 176, 178 and 180 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 590, 397 P.2d 174]; People v. Arellano (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 389, 390-393 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 686]; and People v. Butterfield (1962) 208 Cal.App.2d 243, 244-245 [ 25 Cal.Rptr. 60] . In view of the conclusions concerning the nature of the action reviewed and the scope of the review of that action, this court does not reach the questions postulated upon review of an order revoking parole.

  6. People v. Contreras

    263 Cal.App.2d 281 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 3 times

    The evidence in the present record tends strongly to indicate that the officers from the Montebello Police Department were acting as agents of the parole officer when they conducted their search. ( People v. Contreras, 154 Cal.App.2d 321 [ 315 P.2d 916]; People v. Quilon, 245 Cal.App.2d 624, 627 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 294].) Moreover, the police officers had the right to conduct their search on the basis of their own observations as an incident of defendant's lawful arrest either as a parole violator or as a probable possessor of narcotics. ( People v. Giles, 233 Cal.App.2d 643 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 758]; People v. Wells, 245 Cal.App.2d 203, 206 [ 53 Cal.Rptr. 762].)

  7. People v. Thompson

    252 Cal.App.2d 76 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967)   Cited 40 times

    But when a parole officer is justified in making a search he may enlist the assistance of ordinary peace officers. ( People v. Quilon, supra; People v. Contreras, 154 Cal.App.2d 321, 326 [ 315 P.2d 916]; see People v. Hernandez, supra; People v. Triche, supra.) [1b] Turning to the instant case we conclude that the specific contentions made by defendant have been answered by the cases which have applied the rules above set out. (As to search of a parolee's residence, see People v. Gastelum, supra, p. 208; People v. Contreras, supra, p. 325; People v. Triche, supra, p. 202; as to search after parolee has been taken into custody, see People v. Gastelum, supra, p. 208; as to legality of search by parole officer when accompanied by a police officer, see People v. Gastelum, supra; People v. Giles, 233 Cal.App.2d 643, 646 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 758]; People v. Quilon, supra; People v. Contreras, supra, p. 326.)

  8. People v. Quilon

    245 Cal.App.2d 624 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 32 times

    A parole officer needs neither a search warrant nor consent of a parolee in order to search the latter's premises. ( People v. Denne, supra; People v. Triche, supra; People v. Contreras, 154 Cal.App.2d 321 [ 315 P.2d 916]; People v. Gastelum, 237 Cal.App.2d 205, 208-209 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 743].) Nor does the requirement of reasonable or probable cause apply to a search conducted by the parolee's supervisor.

  9. People v. Arellano

    239 Cal.App.2d 389 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 20 times

    But none of the exigent circumstances have been presented to us in this case. Respondent relies on People v. Denne, 141 Cal.App.2d 499 [ 297 P.2d 451]; People v. Triche, 148 Cal.App.2d 198 [ 306 P.2d 616]; People v. Robarge, 151 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 312 P.2d 70]; and People v. Contreras, 154 Cal.App.2d 321 [ 315 P.2d 916]. None of these cases holds that police officers may disregard Penal Code sections 844, 855 and 3061 in entering private premises to take into actual custody one whose parole has been revoked.

  10. People v. Gastelum

    237 Cal.App.2d 205 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 39 times
    In People v. Gastelum (1965) 237 Cal.App.2d 205, 207 [ 46 Cal.Rptr. 743], involving a similar parolee search, the court observed: "It is also true that when law enforcement officers are unaware of a defendant's parolee status the fact of parole is irrelevant and cannot justify an otherwise unlawful search."

    The search was legal and the fruit thereof properly admitted in evidence. ( People v. Denne, 141 Cal.App.2d 499 [ 297 P.2d 451]; People v. Contreras, 154 Cal.App.2d 321 [ 315 P.2d 916]; People v. Triche, 148 Cal.App.2d 198 [ 306 P.2d 616]; People v. Robarge, 151 Cal.App.2d 660 [ 312 P.2d 70].) [4a] Defendant's final point concerns admission into evidence of his statement made in response to questioning by his parole officer and Modesto city police officers after his arrest and after the search of his residence.