At about 4 o'clock in the afternoon on March 16, 1969, Los Angeles Police Officer David T., McGill, who with Sergeant Wissman was in a marked police vehicle westbound on 48th Street, observed a late model Corvette eastbound on 48th Street going approximately 60 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone. Defendant was the driver. He had a passenger, codefendant Evans (not involved in this appeal). The officers were in plain clothes. Officer McGill tried to note the license number of defendant's car, as his assignment that particular day was to check in that area for grand theft auto. Officer McGill at that time did not have any special reason to believe that defendant's car in particular was stolen. He was checking all cars in the area. Officer McGill made a U-turn to pursue the Corvette in order to check its license number.
Grand theft auto v license key
The officers pulled up into the intersection and got out of their vehicle. The defendant got the Corvette going again and started to pull off the curb to go in a westerly direction back on 54th Street. Officer McGill stood in front of the car and drew his gun. Both defendant and the passenger were asked to get out of the vehicle on the passenger side. They did so and were placed under arrest for suspicion of grand theft auto and reckless driving. No more than five or six minutes elapsed between the time Officer McGill first saw the vehicle until the point he stopped it.
The People contend that probable cause existed to arrest appellant for auto theft (Pen. Code, 487, subd. 3) providing the basis for a search for the fruits, instrumentalities, and evidences of the crime (such as, in this instance, tools, keys and registration slip and such evidences of motivation as narcotics, showing a drug habit to support). (Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 [23 L. Ed. 2d 685, 694, 89 S. Ct. 2034]; Preston v. United States, 376 U.S. 364, 367 [11 L. Ed. 2d 777, 780, 84 S. Ct. 881]; People v. Ross, 67 Cal. 2d 64, 69 [60 Cal. Rptr. 254, 429 P.2d 606] [reversed on other grounds in 391 U.S. 470 (20 L. Ed. 2d 750, 88 S.Ct. 1850)]; People v. Jones, 255 Cal. App. 2d 163, 168-169 [62 Cal. Rptr. 848]; People v. Chacon, 223 Cal. App. 2d 739 [35 Cal. Rptr. 799] [grand theft]. See also [14 Cal. App. 3d 511] People v. Superior Court [Kiefer, real party in interest] (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 807 [91 Cal. Rptr. 729, 478 P.2d 449] initially defining purposes of searches when arrests for other than routine traffic offenses are made.) [1a] It is unnecessary to determine whether such probable cause existed, although in passing we note that there was much to establish that it did. fn. 1
FN 1. Probable cause to arrest exists when facts known to the officers at the time would lead a man of ordinary prudence to conscientiously entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person is guilty of a crime. (People v. Curtis, 70 Cal. 2d 347, 358 [74 Cal. Rptr. 713, 450 P.2d 33]; People v. Talley 65 Cal. 2d 830, 835 [56 Cal. Rptr. 492, 423 P.2d 564].) In the instant case because of Officer McGill's particular assignment to check the area for stolen cars, it was reasonably inferable by him and the trial court that the area was one of high incidence of auto theft. It is true that when the officers turned to follow defendant to check his license, they had no reason to suspect him in particular. However, defendant's conduct in trying to escape, as detailed in the statement of facts, was sufficiently indicative of a desire not to have the license number observed or the vehicle or its registration scrutinized by the police as to justify an immediate suspicion of car theft. Indeed, the officers, for part of the pursuit, were unable to read the license because of defendant's escape tactics. Defendant's wild antics were too extreme to be explained as attempted avoidance of a mere citation for going 60 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone. His speed and recklessness demonstrates that he was determined to avoid police scrutiny despite great risk to himself and others. Defendant contends that the fact that the officers apprehended him without hearing a response to the broadcast of the license number, without checking the "hot car" sheets within the police vehicle, and without checking defendant's driver's license and vehicle registration certificate at the intersection where the chase ended demonstrates that they did not really believe the car was stolen. However, it is significant that the pursuit was wild and short. Officer McGill for good reason did not hear a response regarding the license number. Defendant, after his car stalled, again tried to escape. Officer McGill felt obliged to detain him by standing in front of the car with drawn gun. These circumstances gave reasonableness to a prompt arrest. The arrest as announced, was firstly for grand-theft-auto. About six police cars arrived to help indicating that the radio call for assistance had been an urgent one involving a serious offense.
2ff7e9595c
Comments