Love

Appellant has appealed pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (n), after a plea of guilty entered subsequent to the denial by the trial court of her motion to suppress evidence. The only issue in the case at bench is thus the propriety of the action of the trial court in denying that motion.

Facts

Several days prior to August 18; 1968, an informer told Officer Robert D. Cody of the Los Angeles Police Department that “he had knowledge” that Cleveland Washington was “dealing in large amounts of marijuana.” *26 The informer told Cody where Washington lived and took him to the location. The informer pointed out Washington’s house and a 1966 Cadillac, white over blue, the vehicle customarily driven by the suspect.

On two prior occasions, the informer had given Cody information concerning large transactions in marijuana. On one of those occasions, the informer gave information that a suspect was about to transport 97 kilos of marijuana to New York. As a result of that information, the suspect was arrested and bound over at. a preliminary hearing. The suspect was not convicted, however, because he disappeared during trial. On the other occasion, the informer told…

I dissent.

The court admits that in the case at bench we have an “informer who does not expressly purport to speak from his own knowledge or to disclose the source of his information.” Clearly Officer Cody from what he was told by the informer could not have obtained either an arrest warrant or a search warrant. (Aguilar v. Texas (1964) 378 U.S. 108 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 723 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 ]; People v. Hamilton (1969) 71 Cal.2d 176 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 785 , 454 P.2d 681 ].)

But Officer Cody then proceeded by his own observation to verify part of what the informer had told him. The officer observed defendant and Washington leave Washington’s house with three suitcases and travel to the airport. The information which Officer Cody did not verify by his observation was that the suitcases contained marijuana. The court holds first that the information which was verified furnished probable cause for the arrest and search under the doctrine of Draper v. United States (1959) 358 U.S. 307 [ 3 L.Ed.2d 327 , 79 S.Ct. 329 ].

I think that Draper is of doubtful validity today. Nothing which the officer in Draper verified by his observation incriminated the defendant. The court referred to the only…

Appellant has appealed pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5, subdivision (n), after a plea of guilty entered subsequent to the denial by the trial court of her motion to suppress evidence. The only issue in the case at bench is thus the propriety of the action of the trial court in denying that motion.

Several days prior to August 18, 1968, an informer told Officer Robert D. Cody of the Los Angeles Police Department that "he had knowledge" that Cleveland Washington was "dealing in large amounts of marijuana." The informer told Cody where Washington lived and took him to the location. The informer pointed out Washington's house and a 1966 Cadillac, white over blue, the vehicle customarily driven by the suspect.

On two prior occasions, the informer had given Cody information concerning large transactions in marijuana. On one of those occasions, the informer gave information that a suspect was about to transport 97 kilos of marijuana to New York. As a result of that information, the suspect was arrested and bound over at a preliminary hearing. The suspect was not convicted, however, because he disappeared during trial. On the other occasion, the informer…