People v. Ramsey

Appellants were charged with the crime of abortion in one information and with the crime of abortion and two counts of conspiracy to commit abortion in a second information, both filed in Orange County. The prior felony convictions alleged in the information were admitted. The informations were consolidated for trial and trial by jury was waived. The court found appellants guilty as charged in each case and they were each sentenced to state prison. Appellants appeal from the judgments, contending that they were illegally arrested and that the evidence introduced at the trial was obtained as a result of unlawful search of the house in which they were arrested. The sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions is not questioned, and it is conceded that the facts regarding the search, seizure and arrest of appellants are based upon the uncontradicted testimony of the police officers and the witnesses for the prosecution.

The facts and circumstances of the arrest and seizure herein are as follows: On October 5, 1956, John Baker, a deputy sheriff of Orange County, received a letter from the chief of police of Redwood City stating that a woman in Redwood City had been aborted in Orange County on September 24 and 25 at a place described as the first house beyond an orange grove on West Street in Garden Grove and near an elementary school, bearing a woman’s name. The house was described as containing two bedrooms and a living room, each furnished

On October 11, 1956, the deputies went to the West Street house and, as they approached, they observed a blue and white Ford pulling into the driveway. They obtained the license number of this car and found that it was registered to Milton Ramsey at 1011 223d Street, in the city of Torrance. They then went to the Long Beach police department and reviewed the Ramsey record in the 1948 abortion case. It appeared therefrom that May Leola Ramsey was the defendant and that her address was 1011 223d Street, in the city of Torrance. It was noted that in the 1948 ease the victims were picked up before noon at a prearranged location and were taken to the place of abortion. On October 12, 1956, the officers checked with the public utilities in Orange County and learned that a Madeline Ramsey had applied for utility service by ’phone in November, 1955, and that there had been a minimum of gas and light service furnished. On October 13, 1956, Baker and Hicks observed a 1956 Plymouth automobile at the West Street address and after taking the license number of this car, they found it was registered to a Marvin Reeves in Torrance. On October 17, 1956, Baker and Hicks talked to an inspector in the Long Beach police department, who told them that Milton Ramsey was May Ramsey’s son;

On October 22, 1956, Mr. Parkin, an investigator with the district attorney’s office, told Baker that a “victim” had arrived at the Ramsey residence in a blue and white Ford and that she had left an hour later. On October 24, 1956, at approximately 10:30 a. m., Baker received a call from Parkin, who told him that the blue and white Ford had been driven into the driveway of the Ramsey residence with a woman he identified as May Ramsey, two younger girls, and a man he could not see well enough to identify. Baker then ’phoned Hicks and Sergeant Double of the sheriff’s office and they, with several investigators and officers, a photographer, and a physician (Dr. Hayden) went to the West Street address. Baker used a key to open the front door and entered the house, In the doorway of the bedroom he met Milton Ramsey, who had on a dentist’s or doctor’s jacket. Baker pushed Ramsey into a room and saw therein a table with a woman lying on it, “her legs . . . her feet” were in stirrups, and May Ramsey was sitting at the end of the table and between the legs of the woman. There was a quantity of surgical equipment in the room, a chair near the end of the table with a white dishpan containing several instruments, a card table with syringes and “other medication” on it, a spotlight or floodlight, an electric suction pump, and hypodermic tubes and needles. The woman on the table had an aluminum instrument mth a black rubber face mask tied to her wrists. Pictures

Appellants were placed under arrest and when they arrived at the police station, Milton Ramsey said to Investigator Hays “You didn’t have a search warrant and we will fight you on search, and if we don’t beat you on the search, you have us dead.” The record shows and it is admitted by the prosecution that the officers did not have a search warrant for the premises or a warrant of arrest for the appellants at the time of the arrest and search.

Following the arrest of appellants and their release on “high bail,” they were again arrested on the charges set forth in information C-8756, filed on February 8, 1957. The record shows in this connection that on January 19, 1957, following a conversation with two deputies in the sheriff’s office, Deputy Baker had a conversation with Melvin Heil, a reserve officer in the sheriff’s office. In this conversation Mr. Heil told Baker that he had bought a house on Talbert Street and that upon inquiring who his neighbors would be, he discovered one to be Ramsey; that on January 17, at 11:30 a. m., he observed Milton Ramsey driving into the alley in a blue and white Ford. Ramsey and a young girl, appearing to be about 22 years of age, got out and walked into the house. At 12:45 p. m., Ramsey and the girl were observed leaving the premises and Heil saw the car driving out of the alley; that in his observations of the house it did not appear to Mr. Heil that anyone was living there. Heil further stated to Baker that on the 18th at 11:30 a. m., he saw a Plymouth and a 1955 Ford; that Milton Ramsey and a man left the Plymouth and went into the house. May Ramsey and a young girl left the Ford and also went into the house. When the girl left with Ramsey, it appeared that Ramsey was helping her into the car. Heil was shown a picture of Milton Ramsey and identified him as the driver of the Plymouth. On January 21st Heil told Deputy Baker that at about 4 p. m., a blue Ford arrived through the back alley; that Milton Ramsey got out of the car with a 15 or 16-year-old girl and a middle aged woman and they went into the house.

On January 21, 1957, Officer Baker, with other officers and Dr. Hayden, went to the Talbert Street address in a vehicle driven by Officer Heil. On arrival, Baker proceeded to the front door of the house. He used a key, but the door would not open “completely.” He then put his shoulder to the door, smashed it in, and upon entéring the house, observed

Since the only questions involved in this appeal are whether appellants were illegally arrested and whether the evidence obtained at the places of arrest was obtained as a result of an unlawful search, it is unnecessary to herein set forth the testimony of other witnesses for the prosecution received relevant to the commission of the offenses charged.

Section 836 of the Penal Code provides, in part, that a peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant (1) For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence; (2) When a person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence; (3) When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

In People v. Boyles, 45 Cal.2d 652 , 655, 656 [ 290 P.2d 535 ], the defendant contended that to justify a search incident to arrest under subdivision 3 of section 836 of the Penal Code, there must be evidence, other than any turned up in the search, that a felony has in fact been committed. The court there said:

“Such evidence is present in any ease in which the officer has reasonable cause to believe defendant guilty of a felony. When his belief of defendant’s guilt is based on reasonable cause and a felony has in fact been committed, not only are the requirements of subdivision 3 satisfied, but a search incident to an arrest thereunder is reasonable. [Citations.] . . .

“It is settled, however, that reasonable cause to justify an arrest may consist of information obtained from others and is not limited to evidence that would be admissible at the trial on the issue of guilt. [Citations.] ” (See also Willson v. Superior Court, 46 Cal.2d 291 , 294 [ 294 P.2d 36 ].)

In People v. Brite, 9 Cal.2d 666 , 687 [ 72 P.2d 122 ], it is said that “ ‘Probable cause is a suspicion founded upon circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a reasonable man in the belief that the charge is true.’ [Citations.] ” (See also

In the instant case Deputies Baker and Hicks had reasonable cause, as herein defined, to arrest the appellants, to search the premises and seize evidence relating to the crimes charged. (People v. Walters, 148 Cal.App.2d 426 , 431 [ 306 P.2d 606 ].) The information they received from the chief of police of Redwood City and on their visits to the premises; the facts revealed by a search of their records; the registration of the blue and white Ford; their observations of its operation; the conversation with Officer Peterson of the Los Angeles sheriff’s office; and the information they received from Investigator Parkin were more than sufficient to establish reasonable cause and a reasonable belief that the appellants had committed, or were in the act' of committing, an unlawful abortion at the times of the arrests.

The record shows that on October 24, 1956, at the time of the first arrest, Officer Baker opened the door of the house with a key, and at the time of the second arrest, he broke the door down. He did not first demand entrance or explain his purpose for entering on either of these occasions. Appellants argue that this was a violation of sections 841 and 844 of the Penal Code, which require that before an arrest is made by a peace officer, he must first demand admittance and then explain the purpose for which admission is desired. However, in People v. Maddox, 46 Cal.2d 301 , 305, 306 [ 294 P.2d 6 ], the court held that the requirements of section 841 of the Penal Code are analogous to the requirements of section 844; that if the officer has reasonable grounds to make an arrest, a violation of section 841 would be unrelated and collateral to the securing of evidence by a search incident to the arrest, for what the search turns up will in no way depend on whether the officer informed “the person to be arrested of the intention to arrest him, of the cause of the arrest and the authority to make it. ’ ’ It was further held that:

“. . . [s]ince the officer’s right to invade defendant’s privacy clearly appears, there is no compelling need for strict compliance with the requirements of section 844 to protect basic constitutional guarantees. (Cf. People v. Boyles, supra, 45 Cal.2d 652 , 656 [ 290 P.2d 535 ]; People v. Cahan, supra, 44 Cal.2d 434 , 442 [ 282 P.2d 905 , 50 A.L.R.2d 513 ], footnote.)