People v. De Strulle

Citations: 28 Cal. App. 3d 477; 104 Cal. Rptr. 639; 1972 Cal. App. LEXIS 773Docket: Crim. 20881

Court: California Court of Appeal; November 1, 1972; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Ronald Howard De Strulle was charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana under California Health and Safety Code sections 11500 and 11530, respectively. His motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search at Los Angeles International Airport was denied. In a nonjury trial, he was convicted of cocaine possession, while the marijuana charge was dismissed in the interest of justice. 

De Strulle argued the evidence was obtained through illegal search and seizure and contested the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the judgment. The prosecution's case relied on transcripts from the preliminary examination and the suppression hearing. 

On February 11, 1971, Deputy U.S. Marshal Officer Wingenfeld, part of an anti-hijack detail at the airport, utilized a magnetometer to screen passengers and their luggage. Upon De Strulle's entry into the jetway, both his luggage and himself triggered a high reading on the magnetometer, indicating potential metal presence. After confirming De Strulle had metal items in his pockets, the officer asked him to pass through the magnetometer again, which resulted in a lower reading.

Miss Ferguson, a ground hostess, inquired if De Strulle's luggage could be searched, to which he consented. The officer then conducted a search approximately 15 feet inside the jetway, discovering a bag containing what appeared to be marijuana and another bag with a white powder suspected to be a narcotic.

The defendant appeared nervous, prompting the officer to take him and his luggage to a public relations office to conduct a more thorough search without disrupting other passengers. During the search, the officer discovered a brick of marijuana, but no weapons were found. The officer noted that a high reading on the magnetometer might have been caused by the bag's metal components. He stated it was his routine to inspect luggage that triggered the magnetometer, regardless of passenger consent. The luggage contained items identifying the defendant, including letters and books with his name. A chemist was expected to testify that substances in the luggage included cocaine and marijuana.

The defendant claimed that the evidence was obtained through an illegal search, arguing that the use of the magnetometer violated the Fourteenth Amendment and that his consent was obtained under deceptive circumstances since the officer was in plainclothes. He asserted that the boarding process created a coercive atmosphere detrimental to exercising constitutional rights and that he was not informed of his Miranda rights or his right to refuse the search. He further argued that the search was a pretext for a broader drug investigation.

The document referenced *People v. Botos*, where the court upheld the denial of a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search at an airport, emphasizing that the Fourth Amendment's protections are context-dependent. It noted that the questioning occurred in an airport terminal, a location with heightened security concerns due to increased hijacking incidents, suggesting that individual privacy expectations are lower in such settings. The court found the officer's actions, similar to passing through a magnetometer, were appropriate under the circumstances and justified the search as part of the original investigation.

The appellant argued that his consent to a search was withdrawn when he claimed he did not have keys for the luggage. The court determined that whether consent was valid was a factual question, concluding there was no indication of refusal to cooperate that would suggest a withdrawal of consent. The officer had reasonable cause to suspect the presence of metal based on magnetometer readings, and the appellant acknowledged having metal in his pockets, removing a roach clip when questioned. When asked if the luggage could be searched, he consented, leading to the discovery of marijuana and cocaine.

The court noted that consent was valid regardless of whether the appellant was informed of his Miranda rights or his right to refuse the search. The presence of announcements about luggage searches in the boarding area supported the conclusion that consent was voluntarily given. The court found sufficient evidence that the appellant owned the luggage and asserted that the evidence obtained was legal. The motion to suppress the evidence was denied, and the judgment was affirmed. The petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied, with one judge expressing the opinion that it should be granted. The judgment's affirmation included the sentence.