Summary
In Avalos v. People, 179 Colo. 88, 498 P.2d 1141 (banc 1972) the defendant was stopped because the taillight on her automobile was not functioning. While awaiting a report on the status of her driver's license, which she had told the police officer had expired, one of the officers noted a fresh needle mark on her right wrist.
Summary of this case from State v. GradyOpinion
No. 24059
Decided June 26, 1972.
Defendant was convicted of possession of a narcotic drug, namely, cannabis, and brought error.
Affirmed
1. AUTOMOBILES — Tail Light — Not Functioning — Prior to Arrest — Stopped — — Return to Police Car — Determination — License — Expired — Procedure — Proper. Where defendant, prior to her arrest, was stopped because right tail light on her car was not functioning, and upon being asked to produce her operator's license told policemen that her driver's license had expired, whereupon she was then asked to return with officers to police car so that they could determine whether her license had expired or had been suspended or revoked, held, this procedure, as such, was wholly proper and did not infringe upon any rights of the defendant.
2. ARREST — Tail Light — Not Functioning — Stopped — Officer — Notice — Needle Mark — Plain View — Reliable Informant — User — Probable Cause — Warrantless Search — Inventory. Where officer, after stopping defendant because tail light on automobile was not functioning and while awaiting report as to status of her driver's license, noticed fresh needle mark on her right wrist in plain view, and who knew defendant from past encounters and had information from reliable informant, as well as from fellow officer, that defendant was a narcotics user, held, under these circumstances, officer had probable cause to arrest defendant, and subsequent warrantless search of defendant's purse and seizure of marijuana cigarettes would be upheld either as search incident to arrest or as inventory procedure conducted prior to incarceration.
Error to the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable Gerald E. McAuliffe, Judge.
William F. Reynard, Peter H. Nye, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, John P. Moore, Deputy, Michael T. Haley, Assistant, John E. Bush, Assistant, for defendant in error.
Margaret Avalos, hereinafter referred to as the "defendant," brings this writ of error seeking a reversal of her conviction for possession of a narcotic drug, namely, cannabis. C.R.S. 1963, 48-5-2. Although numerous specifications of error are asserted by the defendant, the only question worthy of consideration is whether the evidence which supported the conviction should have been suppressed because it was seized subsequent to an unlawful arrest without probable cause.
[1] Prior to the defendant's arrest, she was stopped because the right tail light on her car was not functioning. Upon being asked to produce her operator's license, she told the policemen that her driver's license had expired. She was then asked to return with the officers to the police car so that they could determine whether her license had expired or had been suspended or revoked. This procedure was wholly proper and did not infringe upon any rights of the defendant. See Stone v. People, 174 Colo. 504, 485 P.2d 495 (1971); Sumrall v. United States, 382 F.2d 651(10th Cir. 1967); Wilson v. Porter, 361 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1966); People v. Ott, 7 Mich. App. 264, 151 N.W.2d 402 (1967).
[2] While the officers were awaiting a report as to the status of the defendant's driver's license, one of the officers noticed a fresh needle mark on the defendant's right wrist. The needle mark was in plain view. The officer knew the defendant from past encounters and also had information from a reliable informer, as well as from a fellow officer, that the defendant was a narcotics user. Moreover, the background of the defendant as a narcotics user is not controverted. Under these circumstances, the officer clearly had probable cause to arrest the defendant. As we stated in Stone v. People, supra: "There is no question in our minds that the observation of the fresh needle marks, together with the background information possessed by [the officer], constituted probable cause for the arrest."
Following the defendant's arrest, she was taken immediately to police headquarters, where a search of her purse revealed five hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes. The warrantless search of the defendant's purse and the seizure of the marijuana cigarettes maybe upheld either as a search incident to arrest or as an inventory procedure conducted prior to incarceration. See People v. Glaubman, 175 Colo. 41, 485 P.2d 711 (1971), and the cites cited therein.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.