People v. Johnson

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Colvin

    19 Cal.App.3d 14 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 6 times

    (1a) Defendants contend the information was properly set aside because the evidence, which was the basis of the charge against them, was illegally obtained and hence incompetent. Priestly v. Superior Court (1958) 50 Cal.2d 812, 815 [ 330 P.2d 39]; Badillo v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 269, 271 [ 294 P.2d 23]; People v. Johnson (1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 369, 372 [ 317 P.2d 1000]. (2a) They argue, first, that Officer Allinson's act of looking through the window from the guardrail was not a reasonable search because it constituted an unreasonable invasion of their privacy, rendering inadmissible the evidence obtained as the ultimate result of his observations. The People dispute this, additionally contending the evidence was admissible because it was obtained as an incident to arrests made on probable cause furnished by Allinson's observations before he stood on the guardrail.

  2. People v. Valdez

    260 Cal.App.2d 895 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 14 times
    In People v. Valdea (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 895, 902-905, 67 Cal.Rptr. 583, the contention that establishment of a defendant's mental condition must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in order to support a commitment as a mentally disordered sex offender was considered and rejected.

    We believe these facts, taken together with the officers' knowledge of narcotics activities by his companions, gave the officers probable cause to arrest defendant even before the closer examination of his arm which revealed the scab and puncture wound. ( People v. Johnson, 155 Cal.App.2d 369, 372 [ 317 P.2d 1000]; People v. Rodriguez, 140 Cal.App.2d 865, 867 [ 296 P.2d 38].) If probable cause for the arrest existed prior to the seizing of defendant's arm, that "search and seizure" was not unlawful merely because it preceded, rather than followed the arrest.

  3. People v. Russell

    196 Cal.App.2d 58 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961)   Cited 9 times

    (Pen. Code, ยง 836, subd. 1.) Section 11721, Health and Safety Code makes any person who uses, is under the influence of, or is addicted to the use of narcotics, guilty of a misdemeanor. ( People v. Jaurequi, 142 Cal.App.2d 555 [ 298 P.2d 896]; People v. Johnson, 155 Cal.App.2d 369 [ 317 P.2d 1000].) [6] In the conduct of a narcotic investigation, the officers had a right to knock on the door; Brenda responded and asked them what they wanted.

  4. People v. Elliott

    186 Cal.App.2d 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 17 times
    In People v. Elliott, supra, 186 Cal.App.2d 185, the court says at page 190: "But even if there was error, viewed in the light of the whole record it was not of the prejudicial nature which must be shown before a conviction can be reversed; an experienced trial judge and not a jury was the trier of fact.

    Such circumstances justified a reasonable belief that the appellant was at the time an unlawful user and addicted to the unlawful use of narcotics. Hence the arrest was lawfully made. ( People v. Clifton, 169 Cal.App.2d 617, 619 [ 337 P.2d 871]; People v. Johnson, 155 Cal.App.2d 369, 372-373 [ 317 P.2d 1000]; People v. Holland, 148 Cal.App.2d 933, 936-937 [ 307 P.2d 703]; cf. People v. Lujan, 141 Cal.App.2d 143, 146-147 [ 296 P.2d 93].) [3] The removal of the package from the motorcycle and the examination thereof incident to the arrest was reasonable and proper under the circumstances. ( People v. Holland, supra, 148 Cal.App.2d 933, 936-937 [ 307 P.2d 703]; People v. Lujan, supra, 141 Cal.App.2d 143, 147 [ 296 P.2d 93]; see People v. Brajevich, 174 Cal.App.2d 438, 443 [ 344 P.2d 815].)