This is due in 12 hours...... Law Case Brief........please read first

DUDLEY J. DORIGHT

CONCEPTS OF CRIMINAL LAW

M, W 8:00-9:15 A.M.

TITLE: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDANT

VS

RAYMOND ROGERS, DEFENDANT AND APPELANT 241 CA2 559

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND DISTRICT

DIVISION 2, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA APRIL 6, 1966

ACTION: Defendant Rogers was charged with second degree burglary (459 P.C.) FACTS: The appellant, Ray Rogers, was approached by a city police officer at 4:00

A.M. while parked in an area of frequent burglaries. This particular area was about 50 feet outside the city limits of the city where the officer was employed. During the detention and investigation it was noted that Rogers had several packages of candy and cartons of cigarettes in the back seat of his car. Questioning of Rogers produced contradictory statements as to why he was in the area, so other units were called to assist. Upon searching the area it was discovered that a bar across the street had been burglarized. Defendant Rogers was then placed under arrest for burglary. At the station Rogers was relieved of his personal belongings and a ring of keys was found. These keys were subsequently tested at the place of the burglaries and were found to fit the locks. The defendant was convicted and appealed on two grounds.

ISSUES: 1. Does a police officer have the authority to make an arrest for a crime

committed 50 feet outside his own jurisdiction? 2. Is it a violation of a defendant’s rights against unreasonable search and

seizure to conduct tests or examinations of objects, such as keys, taken from a defendant at the time of his arrest?

RULES: 1. Police officers have the authority to arrest suspects and investigate

crimes in a bordering jurisdiction up to 500 yards outside the boundaries of their employing agency.

2. When a person is arrested the items found on him may be tested and

the results of the tests used against him in court as evidence. HOLDING: The appellate court denied the appeal and affirmed the defendant’s

conviction. The court referred to Section 782 of the Penal Code, which

states, “When a public offense is committed on the boundary or within 500 yards of another jurisdiction, either competent court may have jurisdiction.” The court ruled that this jurisdiction also extends to the investigation of crimes. In this case the investigating officer was justified in arresting the defendant because he had reasonable cause to believe that the defendant was committing a crime and he was well within the geographical boundaries of the 500 yards established by Section 782 of the Penal Code. The process of detention of a suspect under reasonable circumstances and for a brief period has been a long established right of the police. Anything found while searching an arrested suspect may be used in evidence including the testing of objects in various ways. Another point brought out by Justice Fleming in writing the decision was that the keys used in the crime did not belong to the defendant but in fact were the property of the establishments he had burglarized. Thus the defendant had no grounds to complain about them being tested.

OPINION: My opinion of the case is that the decision was proper and the court was

correct in not disrupting the existing powers of the police concerning their search and seizure or arrest authorities. In applying the 500-yard rule to the police authority to search and arrest the court made a proper and logical extension of Penal Code 782.

One issue that the court did not address in this decision is whether or not

the 500 yard rule would only apply to geographical boundaries within one county or if it would include the boundaries between two counties. I believe that the wording of the opinion indicates that the decision would apply to county boundaries also.

The court’s decision with regards to the testing of the keys is simple

common sense. As long as the arrest and search were legal there should be no restrictions on how the evidence is tested or analyzed. This is especially true if the evidence is not even the property of the accused who therefore should not have any right to suppress the evidence or test results.