Huff

Defendant Stanley Huff was charged by information with possession of stolen property, in violation of section 496 of the Penal Code, and burglary, in'violation of section 459 of the Penal Code. He was also charged with three prior felony convictions.

Defendant entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. Thereafter, he moved to suppress the evidence obtained in a vehicle search, pursuant to section 1538.5 of the Penal Code, and to dismiss the information, pursuant to section 995 of the Penal Code. These motions were denied.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of second degree burglary. He also admitted one of the three prior convictions with which he was charged, and the other two priors were dismissed, as was the charge of possession of stolen property. Defendant was sentenced to state prison. Pursuant to section 1538.5, subdivision (m), of the Penal Code, he has appealed from the judgment of conviction on the ground that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the information was submitted for decision upon the preliminary hearing transcript and points and authorities…

I reluctantly concur under the compulsion of stare decisis (People v. Mickelson (1963) 59 Cal.2d 448, 454 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 18 , 380 P.2d 658 ]; People v. Smith (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 41 [ 84 Cal.Rptr. 229 ]). This case is yet another example of the frivolous extension of the exclusionaiy rule. We are required by higher authority to reject, and thereby discourage, proficient and unoppressive police investigation on the abstruse distinction between detention and arrest.

Since the overriding concept in any search and seizure issue is “reasonableness under all the circumstances” (United States v. Rabinowitz (1950) 339 U.S. 56, 66 [ 94 L.Ed. 653, 660 , 70 S.Ct. 430 ]; People v. Lawler (1973) 9 Cal.3d 156, 160 [ 107 Cal.Rptr. 13 , 507 P.2d 621 ]), and since I believe that Officer Samuelson had probable cause to arrest defendant for robbery, I would—if writing on a clean slate—uphold the search. Unfortunately, as spelled out in the main opinion, the slate is covered and this court is not possessed with the power of erasure.

A petition" for a rehearing was denied August 9, 1978.

Defendant Stanley Huff was charged by information with possession of stolen property, in violation of section 496 of the Penal Code, and burglary, in violation of section 459 of the Penal Code. He was also charged with three prior felony convictions.

Defendant entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. Thereafter, he moved to suppress the evidence obtained in a vehicle search, pursuant to section 1538.5 of the Penal Code, and to dismiss the information, pursuant to section 995 of the Penal Code. These motions were denied.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of second degree burglary. He also admitted one of the three prior convictions with which he was charged, and the other two priors were dismissed, as was the charge of possession of stolen property. Defendant was sentenced to state prison. Pursuant to section 1538.5, subdivision (m), of the Penal Code, he has appealed from the judgment of conviction on the ground that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence.

Defendant's motion to dismiss the information was submitted for decision upon the preliminary hearing transcript and points and…