Court Opinion

ID: 9710949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:21:19.639456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:01.337963
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
BUCHANAN, C.J.
We use this opportunity to expand upon the justification for the warrantless police search of Ingle’s basement. See this court’s opinion of June 26, 1978, reported at 377 N.E.2d 885.
It is still our conclusion that the officers were justified in walking through the house in search of other suspects. See People v. Block (1971), 6 Cal.3d 239, 491 P.2d 9; Guevara v. Superior Court (1970), 7 Cal.App.3d 245, 86 Cal.Rptr. 657; People v. Mann (1969), 61 Misc.2d 107, 305 N.Y.S.2d 226. As stated in People v. Mann, supra:
Arrest gives the police the right to search the person and the immediate surroundings of the arrestee, surveillance of a prisoner and the right to check for confederates or accomplices extends that right to permit the police an over-all-view of the other rooms in the premises, with a concomitant right to seize evidence or weapons in plain view.
305 N.Y.S.2d at 232-33.
Furthermore, the officers had a right to make a security check of the basement for persons who could pose a threat to their safety. Courts have consistently upheld this right to make a security check. See U.S. v. Blake (8th Cir. 1973), 484 F.2d 50, cert. denied (1974), 417 U.S. 949; U.S. v. Christophe (2d Cir. 1972), 470 F.2d 865, cert. denied, Fierro v. U.S. (1973), 411 U.S. 964, and Panica v. U.S. (1973), *709411 U.S. 964; U.S. v. Miller (D. C. Cir. 1971), 449 F.2d 974; U.S. v. Briddle (1970), 436 F.2d 4, cert. denied (1971), 401 U.S. 921.
In U.S. v. Blake, supra, a case with many similarities to the present case, the court stated:
Hillebrand further testified during the trial that he saw a door in the kitchen that went downstairs apparently to a basement. Hillebrand said that he and Detective Anderson went downstairs to check for other persons. In the process of making this security check of the basement they saw the white purse [which contained heroin] on the floor in “plain view” and under an open clothes chute.
The Government’s ... justification for the search comports with the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. . . . Once in the apartment, a quick and cursory viewing for the apartment is permissible to check for other persons who might present a security risk.
484 F.2d at 56-57.
In the present case, the police officers were faced with a large number of people present on the premises, at least one of whom was suspected of dealing in drugs and one of whom had displayed a shotgun. Under these circumstances, it was permissible for the police to make a cursory search of the basement to determine if other persons were present who could pose a threat to the police.
Petition for Rehearing denied.
Staton, J. (by designation) Concurs.
Sullivan, J. Concurs.
NOTE — Reported at 377 N.E.2d 885.