Schmel

People v. Schmel

Good Law
126 Cal. Rptr. 317·1975 Cal. App. LEXIS 1644·54 Cal. App. 3d 46
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 24, 1975Crim. 8099California1,608 words

Opinion

Opinion

Whelan, J.

Defendant Alexander Schmel pleaded guilty to a charge of possessing marijuana for sale, after his motion to suppress evidence was denied, and has appealed from an order granting probation.

Defendant’s appellate contentions may be summarized as follows:

The seizure of the contraband sought to be suppressed was illegal because it was the result of an unlawful entry into the house by the officers, and was seized in a room in that house into which the officers had no right to enter since they had no search warrant.

It is not contended that the officers did not have probable cause to enter the house to make an arrest for a felony, but that they failed to comply with Penal Code section 844; and no contention is made the contraband seized was not in plain view in the room in which it was found.

A recital of the facts disposes of all the appellate contentions and supports the order denying the motion to suppress.

At about 3:30 on the afternoon of September 30, 1974, defendant guided Gerald Richard Briggs and Herbert Meisner, State Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement officers, to a house in Chula Vista. In the car with Briggs, Meisner and defendant was Michael Hassay, an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.