Opinion
No. 76-368
Decided June 23, 1977. Rehearing denied August 4, 1977. Certiorari granted November 15, 1977.
Convicted of attempt to dispense a dangerous drug, defendant appealed.
Affirmed
1. CRIMINAL LAW — Search and Seizure — Defendant — Validly Incarcerated — Search of His Clothing — Jail Officials — Drugs Found — Properly Not Suppressed. Since defendant had been validly arrested and incarcerated, he was thereafter subject to those reasonable searches necessary to the safe and effective administration of the detention facility, and since, as to jail officials' search of defendant's clothing held in the jail clothing room, there was no evidence that the search was conducted for the purpose of harassing or humiliating defendant or in a cruel and unusual manner, the trial court properly denied a motion to suppress the drugs found in that search.
2. Testimony of Witness — Related — Offense Charged — Attempt to Procure — Dangerous Drug — Admissible Show Chain of Events — Intent or Scheme. Where testimony of witness that defendant had represented himself as a drug dealer, and that that witness had knowledge of a drug dealer named Whitehorse, was testimony that did not refer to a transaction wholly independent of the offense for which the defendant was on trial; rather, the testimony comprised an integral part of defendant's attempt to procure and dispense a dangerous drug; and, as such, it was admissible into evidence to establish the chain of events leading to commission of the offense and to establish defendant's intent or scheme.
Appeal from the District Court of Weld County, Honorable Hugh H. Arnold, Judge.
J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Attorney General, Edward G. Donovan, Assistant Attorney General, E. Ronald Beeks, Assistant Attorney General, Linda Palmieri Rigsby, Assistant Attorney General, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy Public Defender, Bryan D. Shaha, Deputy State Public Defender, Cary C. Lacklen, Deputy State Public Defender, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant, Vern Hudson, appeals the judgment of conviction on one count of criminal attempt to dispense a dangerous drug. We affirm the judgment.
In August 1975, defendant was arrested on an unrelated charge by Weld County police officers. He was removed to the Weld County jail where he was searched and his belongings inventoried. On the following day, defendant received a set of prison clothing, and his personal clothing was placed in a paper sack and deposited in the clothing room at the jail.
According to Donald Wilson, a prosecution witness who was also in custody at that time, the defendant inquired of Wilson whether it was possible to gain access to the clothing room. Wilson replied that it was. Defendant then asked Wilson if Wilson was familiar with the name "Whitehorse," to which Wilson responded that he knew Whitehorse, by reputation, to be a seller of drugs. At this point, defendant identified himself as Whitehorse, and stated that he had a quantity of drugs hidden in the pants stored in the clothing room. Defendant offered Wilson a portion of the drugs if Wilson succeeded in retrieving them.
Shortly thereafter, Wilson related the substance of the alleged conversation to a police officer. Proceeding without a search warrant, authorities at the jail searched defendant's clothing and discovered a package of white powder concealed in a fold in defendant's trousers. The powder was later identified as methamphetamine.
I.
Asserting that the search of his clothing was neither based on probable cause nor within a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence taken from his clothing. We hold, to the contrary, that the search in this case resulted in no infringement of defendant's constitutional rights.
[1] Having been validly arrested and incarcerated, cf. People v. Clyne, 189 Colo. 412, 541 P.2d 71 (1975), defendant was thereafter subject to those reasonable searches necessary to the safe and effective administration of the detention facility. Moore v. People, 171 Colo. 338, 467 P.2d 50 (1970); see also Larkin v. People, 177 Colo. 156, 493 P.2d 1 (1972). There was no evidence here that the search was conducted for the purpose of harassing or humiliating defendant or in a cruel and unusual manner. Nor do we perceive a material distinction between the search of an inmate's cell, Moore v. People, supra, and, as here, the search of an inmate's effects located in an area to which he has possible access. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress.
II.
[2] Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in permitting testimony which implicated defendant in other criminal transactions. However, Wilson's testimony that defendant had represented himself as a drug dealer, and that Wilson had knowledge of a drug dealer named Whitehorse, did not refer to transactions wholly independent of the offense for which the defendant was on trial. Cf. Stull v. People, 140 Colo. 278, 344 P.2d 455 (1959). Rather, the testimony comprised an integral part of defendant's attempt to procure and dispense a dangerous drug, and, as such, was admissible into evidence to establish the chain of events leading to commission of the offense and to establish defendant's intent or scheme. People v. Geller, 189 Colo. 338, 540 P.2d 334 (1975). See also People v. McKay, 191 Colo. 381, 553 P.2d 380 (1976). Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting the testimony.
The judgment is affirmed.
JUDGE SMITH and JUDGE VAN CISE concur.