Court Opinion

ID: 9725789
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:10:33.258516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:19.806720
License: Public Domain

JEFFERSON, J., Dissenting.
People v. Groves, 71 Cal.2d 1196 [80 Cal.Rptr. 745, 458 P.2d 985], upon which the majority opinion places its reliance, is distinguishable on its facts. In Groves the communications-through-official-channels doctrine was applicable. It is not applicable here.
Modern modes of travel and communication make necessary a policy of permitting an officer having probable cause for arrest to send out an order or request for arrest to officers in the field in the all-points-bulletin-implied-emergency type situation. In the same type situation, a communication to arrest on a warrant is also justified. The need for quick action is the basis for permitting such conduits of probable cause.
In Groves, although the record does not state how soon after the investigation, issuance of the warrant and the teletyping of the message by the San Francisco police requesting that the Los Angeles police find and arrest defendant on the warrant, he was actually arrested; but it clearly appears to have been a matter of only a day or two. It goes without saying that the situation in Groves bears no resemblance to the facts in the present case where the arrest occurred several months after the investigation and issuance of the warrant.
The test used to establish the legality of an arrest where the arrest warrant turns out to be invalid is as stated in People v. Chimel, 68 Cal.2d 436 [67 Cal.Rptr. 421, 439 P.2d 333] reversed on other grounds in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 [23 L.Ed.2d 685, 89 S.Ct. 2034] at p. 442: If the arresting officer “had been proceeding without a warrant in arresting defendant [would] the arrest have been lawful?” The answer here must be “no” since the arresting officer lacked probable cause himself and the *505communications-through-official-channels doctrine could not be properly applied under the facts to an arrest made months after the investigation was made and the warrant issued.
I would affirm the order of dismissal entered by the trial court.
Respondent’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied March 11, 1970. Peters, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.