California Sacramento County Arrest Marijuana Driving Intoxicated Suppress Evidence Lawyers Attorneys

• By Cali Shaye
• Legalize Marijuana
• 14 years ago
• 0

THE PEOPLE, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent; HAROLD GROVNOR NIMS, Real Party in InterestCourt of Appeal of California, Third Appellate DistrictAugust 15, 1969

On November 25, 1968, two California Highway Patrol officers saw an auto being driven at 50 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour speed zone on a Sacramento street.  The car was weaving back and forth between the center line and curb.  The officers suspected that its driver was intoxicated.  They signaled the vehicle to stop and it did.  During the interview which followed the officers formed the opinion that both the driver and the passenger of the car were intoxicated.  They saw in plain view a bottle of liquor which had been opened and arrested Nims, Defendant (the driver), for driving while intoxicated.  Since the passenger was too drunk to drive the vehicle from the scene, the officers called a tow truck to remove it.  They then proceeded to inventory the contents of the vehicle.  A brown paper bag containing 48 matchboxes of marijuana specially packaged apparently for sale was found in the trunk.  Defendant was then arrested for possession of marijuana and possession for sale.  Defendant filed motion to suppress the evidence, which was granted by the superior court.  The People, pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1538.5(o), filed a petition for a writ of mandate to review the order.

Issue:

In this case both occupants of the car were drunk the police had either to tow it from the scene and store it, or leave it unattended on a city street. The latter alternative was obviously undesirable, and the former requires inventory for protection of the owner and the storage bailee.  An inventory of a vehicle is permissible when there is no reasonable alternative to towing and storage, and evidence which comes to light during the course of such an inventory is properly admitted into evidence.  Moreover the Marijuana found by officers in the trunk of an automobile was lawfully seized by them, where, having arrested the driver of the car for drunken driving, and having observed that his passenger was too drunk to drive, the officers had called a tow truck to remove the car from the street, which procedure requires inventory of the vehicle for protection of the owner and the storage bailee.

The court issued the writ of mandate to review the order.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group.  They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions.  The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content