Case Title: Garcia v. People

Citation: 416 P.2d 373

Docket Number: 

State: colorado

Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Date: 1966-07-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
416 P.2d 373 (1966) Gilbert Everett GARCIA, Plaintiff In Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. No. 21502. Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc. July 5, 1966. *374 Clarke W. Karr, Denver, for plaintiff in error. Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Aurel M. Kelly, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error. SUTTON, Chief Justice. On February 7, 1964, Gilbert Everett Garcia was tried and convicted of possession of narcotics, specifically cannabis sativa L., more commonly known as marijuana, in violation of C.R.S. '53, 48-6-2. He was thereafter sentenced to the Colorado State Penitentiary for a period of not less than three nor more than nine years. Before trial, defense counsel moved to suppress certain evidence which consisted of a matchbook which had a marijuana cigarette therein and marijuana scrapings taken from Garcia's pockets at the police station. The court delayed the hearing; of this motion until after the People's case, and ordered the trial to proceed. Thereafter, after the prosecution had rested, defense counsel renewed his motion, which was denied. After the conviction, the matter was raised for a third time in Garcia's unsuccessful combined motion for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The defendant now seeks relief by way of writ of error urging that the sole question involved is whether the arrest was lawful. We, however, believe that the pertinent question presented is whether the actions by the apprehending policemen were violative of the constitutional safeguards concerning search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 7 of the Colorado Constitution, thereby barring the admission into evidence of the marijuana involved? Three persons testified about the events which occurred during the evening in question: Denver Police officers Harold R. Sanderson and William Lee Brannan for the prosecution, and Garcia on his own behalf for the defense. Officer Sanderson testified that at approximately 10:50 p.m. of the evening of November 7, 1963, while cruising with Officer Brannan in their squad car, he observed the defendant and another person drinking wine from a bottle on Lawrence Street just off 17th Street in Denver. Brannan stopped his vehicle. Sanderson then testified as to what happened as follows: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned the officer on his reason for originally calling the defendant back: Officer Brannan substantially corroborated Sanderson's testimony. Garcia, on the other hand, gave testimony which substantially conflicted with that given by the patrolmen. In such a case, of course, we do not reverse on a conflict in the evidence. The People argue that no arrest occurred before the defendant was seen to have dropped the matchbook, and only upon finding contraband did the officer arrest on probable cause. Defendant asserts, however, that Sanderson's actions before the matchbook was dropped constituted an arrest, and because he claims there were no grounds for a lawful arrest at that time, the articles thereafter seized were inadmissible. C.R.S. '53, 75-2-3, then in effect, provided in part: " * * * It shall be unlawful for any person: * * * Thereafter, C.R.S. '53, 75-2-28 states that: * * * Finally, C.R.S. '53, 75-2-29 directs: In view of the above quoted statutes and the testimony of Officer Sanderson, the defendant's ground for reversal here is based upon a false premise. This is so because assuming, without deciding, that Officer Sanderson's actions prior to the picking up of the matchbook did constitute an arrest, such an arrest was not illegal, as contended, because Garcia's drinking on a public street constituted a violation of the statute cited above and he was subject to immediate arrest therefor. As we view it, the many recent cases on "probable cause" for arrest are not *376 pertinent to the facts here where a violation of the law occurred in the sight of the officers. Prior to the drinking, no search had taken place. What occurred after the lawful stopping of the defendant was a seizure of the contraband dropped by Garcia. Under these circumstances, the officer's actions were clearly proper and justified. Of course, the search at the police station was even more strongly warranted. We have only recently held that in a proper situation, the police need not ignore that which comes into plain view. Alire v. People, Colo., 402 P.2d 610, 612 (1965). Here where the stopping and initial detention of the defendant was lawful, that rule had full effect when the officer picked up the evidence in the street. The judgment is affirmed. MOORE, J., not participating.