Court Opinion

ID: 9726536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:56:10.403315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:28.208911
License: Public Domain

ROTH, P. J.
I dissent.
Our opinion reversing Howard’s conviction, filed March 19, 1970, was predicated upon People v. McGrew, 1 Cal.3d 404 [82 Cal.Rptr. 473, 462 P.2d 1], and Abt v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.3d 418 [82 Cal.Rptr. 481, 462 P.2d 10]. It was vacated on our grant of a rehearing on April 15, 1970. That rehearing, which I voted to deny, was granted by the then majority primarily because of a petition for certiorari pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in McGrew, which was subsequently denied. (398 U.S. 909 [26 L.Ed.2d 67, 90 S.Ct. 1689].) Following that, we held this case until now upon the expectation that either McGrew or Abt, sharply criticized in petitions for hearings sought by the People (e.g., People v. Superior Court (Moss r.p.i.), 2d Civ. No. 36125, hg. granted May 15, 1970  ), would be modified or even disapproved. That expectation has now been set aside as false in People v. Lanthier, 5 Cal.3d 751 [97 Cal.Rptr. 297, 488 P.2d 625], subscribed to by a unanimous court. As I read Lanthier, Abt and McGrew continue to be binding upon us.
Lanthier, relied upon by the majority, is totally inapplicable to this case on the evidence at bench, even as it is hospitably highlighted by the majority. Lanthier approved searches without warrants which have “ ‘. . . tradition*1001ally [been] upheld in emergency situations. [Citations.]’ ” (5 Cal.3d at pp. 755-756.) At bench, the airlines agent was plainly and concededly suspi-, cious of illegal activity when he opened the packages. The supervisor of security guards in Lanthier, on the other hand, suspected nothing but spoiling food until the very moment when acting upon a request from Stanford University library authorities, he opened a locker and then a briefcase located therein from which the noxious odor emanated. (5 Cal.3d at p. 753.)
The distinction between the warrantless search at bench and the entirely fortuitous discovery of marijuana in Lanthier by officials seeking the source of offensive odors is obvious. Having awaited, without results, the reversal of views expressed in McGrew for well over a year, I would, under the unmistakable mandate of that case, as well as Abt, and even Lanthier itself, reverse the judgment.