Pease

People v. Pease

Good Law
1966 Cal. App. LEXIS 1141·242 Cal. App. 2d 442·51 Cal. Rptr. 448
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 25, 1966Crim. No. 5190; Crim. No. 5191California3,645 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sullivan, J.

These are appeals in two separate cases. In 1 Grim. 5190 defendants Ethel Pease, James B. Valentine and Manuel B. Mattos were charged in an information with possession of a narcotic (percodan). (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500.) Their motion to set aside the information was granted (Pen. Code, § 995) 1 and the People appeal. In 1 Crim. 5191 defendant Ethel Pease alone was charged in an information with two counts of receiving stolen property (§496). Her motion to set aside the information was granted (§ 995) and the People appeal. All of the offenses were charged as having been committed on January 6, 1965, arose out of the same incident and can be set forth in a single statement of facts. 2 Basically both cases present a single issue: Whether on the occasion in question the forcible entry by the police was legally made and the evidence thereafter seized by them legally secured.

At the preliminary hearing San Francisco Police Inspector Yasinitsky testified that on January 6, 1965, he and Inspector Webb went to the premises at 1845 Bush Street, San Francisco, because they had received information from fellow officers Hurley and Dickson that William Bert Schindler, a wanted felon for…

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.