Kanos

People v. Kanos

Caution
1969 Cal. LEXIS 341·70 Cal. 2d 381·74 Cal. Rptr. 902·450 P.2d 278
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 18, 1969Crim. No. 12580California2,533 words

Opinion

concurrence Opinion

Mosk, J.

I concur under compulsion of People v. Rosales (1968) 68 Cal.2d 299 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 437 P.2d 489 ].

dissent Opinion

Burke, J.

I dissent. The entry by the police officers in noncompliance with Penal Code section 844 was excused in the reasonable belief that appellant was armed, and that compliance would appreciably enhance their peril. (People v. Maddox, 46 Cal.2d 301, 305-307 [ 294 P.2d 6 ]; see also Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 [ 10 L.Ed.2d 726 , 83 S.Ct. 1623 ].) Under Maddox, supra, the test is whether there is reasonable cause to make the arrest and search and the facts known to the officers before their entry are not inconsistent with a good faith belief on the part of the officers that compliance with section 844 is excused.

Applying that test here the officers knew: (1) Appellant Denis Kanos was wanted for violation of parole (this was verified by his parole officer under whose direction he was apprehended). To police officers this would reasonably mean that appellant had much more at stake than the ordinary first offender; (2) that he was dealing in large quantities of heroin (this information was from several sources, including a reliable informant). Again, to police officers they knew they were dealing with a professional, not the usual “pusher” peddling *388 an occasional bindle to support…

lead Opinion

Peters, J.

Denis Kanos and his wife, Toni Antoinette Kanos, were convicted of possession of heroin and possession of heroin for sale. (Health & Saf. Code, §§11500, 11500.5.) He was found to have four prior felony convictions and was sentenced to prison. His wife's motion for new trial was denied, and narcotic addiction commitment proceedings were initiated. He has appealed from the judgment, and she from the order denying her motion for new trial. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subds. 1, 2.)

Over a two- to three-month period Los Angeles police officers received information from three informants that Denis Kanos was dealing in heroin. The officers had seen him driving a Thunderbird automobile but did not know his exact address. In connection with the arrest of Al Marrato, one of Kanos’ dealers, the officers obtained Kanos’ telephone number, and through the telephone company learned his address. They also discovered that Kanos was a parole violator and that a warrant for his arrest had been outstanding for a year. His parole officer who had not seen Kanos in over a year said that Kanos might be armed and that on a prior occasion he had bought, sold, possessed and attempted to use guns. The officers were…

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.