Court Opinion

ID: 9736453
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:57:22.716039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:06.804167
License: Public Domain

SALSMAN, J.
I dissent.
I agree that appellant was lawfully arrested and properly in custody. I also agree that search of appellant’s room could not lawfully be accomplished, in the absence of a search warrant or consent, under rules reiterated in People v. Crus, 61 Cal.2d 861 [40 Cal.Rptr. 841, 395 P.2d 889]. I disagree with the proposition that appellant’s consent to search is invalid as a matter of law.
There are no unusual facts presented here, such as are found in Castaneda v. Superior Court, 59 Cal.2d 439 [30 Cal. Rptr. 1, 380 P.2d 641], People v. Shelton, 60 Cal.2d 740 [36 Cal.Rptr. 433, 388 P.2d 665], and Application of Tomich, 221 F.Supp. 500. In Tomich, for example, the officers did not have reasonable cause, or any cause, to arrest defendant. They made an arrest despite lack of cause, and claimed their later search was by consent. In Castaneda the petitioner was lawfully arrested in the City of Lynwood and later taken to the City of Compton; he twice misdirected the officers to residences where he was supposed to have narcotics, but search of one revealed nothing; there was evidence that he told Ms aunt, in the presence of the officers, “Mary, don’t tell them nothing. Mary, don’t tell them nothing.” In Shelton, the defendant was arrested at an apartment two miles from the apartment later searched, and defendant refused to aid the officers in gaining access to the apartment. In Shelton also the court was careful to point out that the claimed consent could not justify search because search necessarily involved the invasion of the privacy of a joint occupant. No such extreme circumstances are present here. Here appellant’s arrest took place within 250 feet of Ms room. It is true that appellant had a key in Ms posses*112sion when consent to search was given and that the landlady opened the door with her key. The trial judge found that consent to search had been lawfully extended. In my view the facts here do not require us to say that, as a matter of law, a valid consent to search could not be given.
I would affirm the judgment.