PEOPLE v. LOZANO

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Docket No. 2481.

Attorney(S)

Jesse Jaime Lozano, in pro. per., James H. Quinn and Francis B. Bennett, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendants and Appellants. Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, Edward P. O'Brien and Michael Buzzell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Judges

BROWN (Gerald), P.J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Jesse Jaime Lozano and Manuel Valdez Ruiz were convicted by a jury of second degree burglary in San Diego County. The convictions arose from events on the early morning of November 3, 1965, when Police Officer Milburn Wilson observed Lozano and Ruiz place a bag containing money into a trash can and subsequently arrested them. The bag contained coins reportedly stolen from a nearby market that had been burglarized during the night. Detective Paul Novotny investigated the burglary and found evidence including cartons of cigarettes and coins in a Jaguar automobile suspected to be stolen and linked to the defendants. Lozano admitted two prior felony convictions, and Ruiz admitted one. The defendants appealed the judgments of conviction, which were affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the search of the Jaguar automobile by Detective Novotny, without a search warrant, was lawful and whether the evidence seized was admissible.
Whether the admission of Ruiz's statements to the police violated constitutional protections as articulated in Miranda v. Arizona, and if so, whether those statements should have been excluded.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

Lozano and Ruiz contended that the search of the Jaguar was unlawful because it was conducted without a warrant, and thus the seized evidence should be excluded.
Ruiz argued that his statements to the police were inadmissible under the principles later established in Miranda v. Arizona.

Prosecution's Arguments

The prosecution maintained that the search was reasonable under the circumstances because the vehicle registration slip was required by law to be visible and the officer was justified in searching for it and other evidence in a suspected stolen vehicle.
The prosecution argued that Ruiz was properly warned of his rights under the then-existing constitutional standards (Escobedo and People v. Dorado) and that the trial occurred before the effective date of Miranda, making the admission of statements proper.
They further contended that Ruiz's failure to object at trial waived any claim of error regarding the admission of his statements.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478	Requirement to warn suspects of constitutional rights prior to interrogation.	Ruiz and Lozano were warned of their rights as required at the time; this satisfied constitutional protections then in effect.
People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338	California standard for warnings before custodial interrogation prior to Miranda.	Supported the court's determination that warnings given to defendants were adequate under existing law.
People v. Guerrero, 247 Cal.App.2d 687	Search of a vehicle to locate registration slip is lawful if officer reasonably believes vehicle is stolen.	Validated the officer's search for the registration slip inside the Jaguar.
People v. Hyde, 51 Cal.2d 152	Items in plain view during lawful search may be seized.	Supported the seizure of cigarettes and coins visible inside the vehicle.
People v. Alvarez, 236 Cal.App.2d 106	Plain view doctrine permits seizure of evidence found in lawful search.	Reinforced the reasonableness of the seizure of evidence from the vehicle.
Mardis v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.2d 70	Reasonableness of search depends on facts and circumstances.	Used to support the court’s conclusion that the extended search of the vehicle was reasonable.
People v. West, 144 Cal.App.2d 214	Lawful search and seizure principles for vehicle evidence.	Supported the court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence seized during the search.
Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58	Reasonableness of searches under the Fourth Amendment depends on totality of circumstances.	Guided the court’s evaluation of the search’s reasonableness without a warrant.
People v. Webb, 66 Cal.2d 107	Permits warrantless search of a vehicle under exigent circumstances.	Supported the court’s conclusion that the search of the back seat and unlocked trunk was reasonable and lawful.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436	Requirement to inform suspects of rights before custodial interrogation.	Not applicable retroactively; trial occurred before effective date; thus, admission of statements was proper.
People v. Rollins, 65 Cal.2d 681	Clarifies application of Miranda and timing of its effect.	Supported the court’s holding that Miranda did not apply to this case.
Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719	Confirms non-retroactivity of Miranda.	Supported court’s conclusion that statements were admissible.
People v. Hillery, 62 Cal.2d 692	Failure to object at trial waives right to claim error on appeal.	Applied to Ruiz’s failure to object to admission of statements, negating his claim.
People v. Merkouris, 46 Cal.2d 540	Same as above regarding waiver by failure to object.	Reinforced waiver principle applied here.
People v. Woods, 239 Cal.App.2d 697	Same as above regarding waiver by failure to object.	Supported court’s waiver ruling.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found that the warrantless search of the Jaguar was lawful under the circumstances. Vehicle Code § 4454 required the registration slip to be visible from outside, and the officer reasonably sought it inside the car upon suspecting the vehicle was stolen. The items in plain view—opened cigarette cartons and coins—were properly seized. The court reasoned that requiring the officer to discontinue the search, obtain a warrant, and then return would be unreasonable given the facts. The search of the back seat and unlocked trunk was justified to find evidence of ownership and further stolen property, consistent with precedent allowing warrantless searches under exigent circumstances and reasonableness standards.

Regarding the admission of Ruiz's statements, the court noted that the trial occurred before the effective date of Miranda, and Ruiz was warned of his rights under the then-governing standards (Escobedo and People v. Dorado). Because Ruiz did not object at trial, the court found no basis to exclude the statements on appeal.

Holding and Implications

The judgments of conviction for second degree burglary are affirmed.

This decision directly upholds the convictions of the defendants based on the evidence seized and statements admitted. It does not establish new precedent but applies existing legal principles regarding warrantless vehicle searches and pre-Miranda warnings. The ruling confirms that searches incident to law enforcement investigations may be reasonable without a warrant when supported by specific factual circumstances, and that failure to object at trial waives certain appellate claims.

Show full summary ...

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSE JAIME LOZANO et al., Defendants and Appellants.

BROWN (Gerald), P.J.

Jesse Jaime Lozano and Manuel Valdez Ruiz appeal from judgments of conviction entered upon jury verdicts of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460). Lozano admitted two earlier felony convictions, Ruiz one.

At 3:30 a.m., November 3, 1965, Police Officer Milburn Wilson saw two men (Lozano and Ruiz) put a bag into a trash can near 17th and Broadway Streets in San Diego. The men walked away. Wilson opened the trash can and found a First National Bank money bag containing $260.13 in coin, primarily Kennedy half dollars, Franklin quarters and liberty head dimes. Wilson apprehended and arrested the men. Lozano possessed a hot wire device for starting automobiles and four Kennedy half dollars.

Later in the morning, Detective Paul Novotny investigated a burglary which had occurred during the night at a market on 12th Street, between F and G streets, a short distance from 17th and Broadway. The owner reported missing cartons of Lucky Strike cigarettes, his collection of Kennedy half dollars, Franklin quarters and liberty head dimes, and money from the cash register. Novotny then went to the jail, and warned Lozano and Ruiz of their consitutional rights as required by Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 [12 L.Ed.2d 977, 84 S.Ct. 1758] and People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361]. He obtained an opened Lucky Strike cigarette package from Ruiz. He learned they were walking when arrested because Lozano's automobile had stalled somewhere on Island Street; Lozano possessed two traffic citations covering a Jaguar with Texas license plates; and Lozano hot-wired the car to start it. Novotny suspected Lozano and Ruiz had stolen the Jaguar and the Jaguar contained items stolen from the market.

Novotny found the Jaguar on G Street, just east of 16th Street. Looking into the Jaguar he saw wires dangling under the dashboard near the ignition, and an opened carton of Lucky Strikes and coins on the front floor. He could not see the Jaguar's registration slip. He entered the unlocked Jaguar, picked up the cigarettes and coins from the front floor, found three cartons of Lucky Strikes under some clothing on the rear floor and four cartons of Lucky Strikes and a crowbar in the unlocked trunk. Still looking for the registration slip or some indicia of ownership, he discovered a pocket in the leather lining of the front door; the registration slip was in it. Novotny did not have a search warrant.

[1] Lozano and Ruiz contend Novotny unlawfully searched the Jaguar and seized the crowbar and items stolen from the market. This contention is unmeritorious. Vehicle Code, section 4454, requires vehicle registration slips be plainly and legibly visible from outside the vehicle. Novotny, reasonably believing the Jaguar stolen, sought to locate the registration slip within the car. This was proper ( People v. Guerrero, 247 Cal.App.2d 687 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 7]). Nor was Novotny required to ignore the plainly visible opened carton of Lucky Strikes and the loose coin on the front floor. ( People v. Hyde, 51 Cal.2d 152 [ 331 P.2d 42]; People v. Alvarez, 236 Cal.App.2d 106 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 721] ; Mardis v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.2d 70, 74-75 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 263]; People v. West, 144 Cal.App.2d 214 [ 300 P.2d 729].) Novotny proceeded to search the back seat and unlocked trunk for evidence of ownership and further stolen property. Whether a search is reasonable depends on the facts and circumstances of each case ( Cooper v. California, 386 U.S. 58 [17 L.Ed.2d 730, 87 S.Ct. 788]). In this case, Novotny's search of the back seat and trunk was reasonable. It would be unreasonable to require Novotny, having seen stolen property in a suspected stolen vehicle, and lawfully in it searching for evidence of ownership, to disrupt his investigation, leave the vehicle, obtain a search warrant, return, and then look in the back seat and unlocked trunk for evidence of ownership and further stolen property. (See People v. Webb, 66 Cal.2d 107 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 902, 424 P.2d 342].)

[2] Ruiz contends it was error to admit his statements to the police, citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R.3d 974]. Trial took place in February 1966, before Miranda's June 13, 1966, effective date ( People v. Rollins, 65 Cal.2d 681 [ 56 Cal.Rptr. 293, 423 P.2d 221]; see Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 [16 L.Ed.2d 882, 86 S.Ct. 1772]). Ruiz was properly warned of his constitutional rights as then required ( Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 [12 L.Ed.2d 977, 84 S.Ct. 1758]; People v. Dorado, 62 Cal.2d 338 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 169, 398 P.2d 361]). Furthermore, Ruiz's failure to object in the trial court eliminates any necessity of considering this contention ( People v. Hillery, 62 Cal.2d 692 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 30, 401 P.2d 382]; People v. Merkouris, 46 Cal.2d 540 [ 297 P.2d 999]; People v. Woods, 239 Cal.App.2d 697 [ 49 Cal.Rptr. 266]).

Judgments affirmed.

Coughlin, J., and Whelan, J., concurred.

The petition of appellant Lozano for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 7, 1967.