Opinion ID: 1257147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Questions : First. Was the incidental search of defendant's person proper?

Text: Yes. [1] It is axiomatic that a search of the person incidental to a lawful arrest is valid. ( United States v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 60, 64 [94 L.Ed. 653, 657, 659, 70 S.Ct. 430]; Agnello v. United States, 269 U.S. 20, 30 [70 L.Ed. 145, 148, 46 S.Ct. 4, 51 A.L.R. 409]; People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645, 648 [2a] [290 P.2d 531]; In re Dixon, 41 Cal.2d 756, 761-762 [9] [264 P.2d 513].) A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant whenever he has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony. (Pen. Code, § 836, subd. (3).) [2] Reasonable cause is defined as that state of facts as would lead a man of ordinary care and prudence to believe and conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime. ( People v. Ingle, 53 Cal.2d 407, 412 [2] [2 Cal. Rptr. 14 348 P.2d 577]; People v. Fischer, 49 Cal.2d 442, 446 [1] [317 P.2d 967].) [3] No exact formula exists for determining reasonable cause, and each case must be decided on the facts and circumstances presented to the officers at the time they were required to act. ( People v. Ingle, supra, at p. 412 [1]; People v. Ferguson, 214 Cal. App.2d 772, 775 [4] [29 Cal. Rptr. 691].) [4, 5] The arresting officers, through official radio communication, were fully apprized of the commission of an armed robbery; they had a description of the car, which they had pursued until the Colton police took command; they also had a detailed description of the driver from the Colton police and they knew that the pursuit had terminated at the mill yard. They were entitled to rely on information from official sources. ( People v. Estrada, 234 Cal. App.2d 136, 152 [11] [44 Cal. Rptr. 165, 11 A.L.R.3d 1307]; People v. Schellin, 227 Cal. App.2d 245, 251 [7] [38 Cal. Rptr. 593].) Shortly thereafter, while patrolling in the vicinity of the mill yard, the officers observed defendant walking through an open field; his description matched precisely that given by the officer who had him in the spotlight; his clothes were disheveled, and he appeared tired. The arresting officers clearly had probable cause to arrest defendant, and the incidental search of his person was, therefore, valid. ( Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 175-176 [93 L.Ed. 1879, 1890-1891, 69 S.Ct. 1302]; People v. Schader, 62 Cal.2d 716, 722 [2a], 725 [2b] [44 Cal. Rptr. 193, 401 P.2d 665].)