Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Robert Lee McFARREN, Defendant and Respondent.
The people appeal from an order dismissing the information. Respondent was charged with possession and transportation of marijuana. The motion to dismiss (Pen.Code, § 995) was based wholly upon the ground that the marijuana introduced at the preliminary examination was found in a search of respondent's automobile made without reasonable or probable cause.
No objection of any kind was made to the introduction of this marijuana in evidence. Thus respondent waived his right to assert that the narcotic was inadmissible because illegally obtained (Robison v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.2d 186, 316 P.2d 1, and cases cited therein). In fairness to the trial court, we point out that this decisive issue was not raised on argument of the motion. It is not even mentioned in appellant's brief in this court.
Upon trial, the objection may well be made, and we feel required to comment upon the merits. Respondent went through a stop sign at 4 a. m., and was stopped by an officer in a patrol car. When one officer checked the registration slip, he saw a pistol under the front seat of respondent's car. Respondent was then arrested for violation of Penal Code, Section 12025, the glove compartment of his car was searched, and marijuana was found. If in fact the weapon was concealed, so as to be within the proscription of Section 12025, but was in fact seen by the officer without a search and solely in the course of his checking of the registration slip, we consider that a search of the glove compartment for further weapons was justified. If such facts were found, they would distinguish People v. Molarius, 146 Cal.App.2d 129, 303 P.2d 350.
The order dismissing the information is reversed.
DRAPER, Justice.
KAUFMAN, P. J., and DOOLING, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Cr. 3416.
Decided: November 21, 1957
Court: District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)