FUNTER AUTOMOBILE REGISTRATION
FUNTER AUTOMOBILE CODE

Valuable property was exposed inside the vehicle, yet the doors were unlocked and a window left open.

FUNTER AUTOMOBILE REGISTRATION

No ownership or registration information was visible. The police had come upon an unattended automobile late at night in a nonresidential area which had been the subject of may burglaries. We observe no constitutional impropriety in the initial search of Hunter's automobile. Such a contention, if made, would be invalid. No contention is made that the later impoundment and the inventory of the car's contents were improper. It is the search of his car in the alley of which Hunter complains. As the police car passed the subject automobile he exclaimed, 'That's my car.' The police thereafter impounded the car and made an inventory of its contents, some of which, including property seen earlier in the glove compartment, was later identified as having been stolen that night from the Easom Boat Works and from Joe Ray's Auto Body Shop. Later that evening Hunter, under arrest for burglary, was being transported by other officers to the county jail. A telephone check thereafter made at the police station with the parked car's registered owner indicated that it had been sold to an unknown person. A few minutes later they saw and apprehended Hunter. There in addition to a registration certificate the officers saw a roll of stamps, two one-dollar bills, a box partially filled with loose change, and a key marked 'box to 7-Up Machine.' The officers replaced the property and hearing gunfire, took off in its direction. Looking further for information of the car's ownership, and believing that it possibly had been used in a burglary, the officers opened the car's door and glove compartment. On the seat of the car the officers could see a pair of binoculars, a stereo tape deck and several screwdrivers, one of them about 18 inches long. Pasted on the car was a 'paper plate' indicating that it had recently been purchased, but the customary temporary permit did not appear on the windshield.

Approaching the car the officers noted that its motor was warm, its doors unlocked and the side window on the driver's side rolled down. The area, being nonresidential, was one where cars were not normally parked during evening hours it had recently been the target of many burglaries. Fifteen minutes later the officers saw what appeared to be the same automobile parked in an alley. Being occupied with other matters they did not pursue the car. The facts relating to this contention follow.Īround 10 o'clock one evening, police officers saw a 1953 or 1954 Chevrolet traveling 50 to 60 miles per hour on a street with a 35-mile-per-hour speed limit. Hunter's first contention is that certain evidence, including the only evidence supporting one of the burglary charges, was improperly allowed because it was the product of an illegal search of an automobile. Since the order there made was based on the burglary convictions, the probable theory of appeal is that the order revoking probation must fall if the burglary convictions are reversed. Subtantial evidence was placed before the jury in support of each of the three burglary charges no contention to the contrary is made nor is error in the probation violation proceedings pointed out.

FUNTER AUTOMOBILE CODE

Code, §§ 459-461.) He also appeals from an order revoking probation which had been granted following his conviction of an earlier violation of Vehicle Code section 10851 (action 2439). Reardon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.ĭefendant Freddie Louis Hunter appeals from judgments (in actions 2893, 2902), entered upon jury verdicts, finding him guilty of three charges of second degree burglary.

Cake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. (Opinion by Elkington, J., with Molinari P. FREDDIE LOUIS HUNTER, Defendant and Appellant

Funter automobile