People v. Lester, 101 Cal. App. 3d 613 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Lester, 101 Cal. App. 3d 613 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
28 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Mayberry (cal, 1982-05-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Mayberry (4×)
Cal. · 1982 · confidence medium
(See People v. Denman (1980) 112 Cal. App.3d 1003, 1005-1007 [ 169 Cal. Rptr. 742 ]; People v. Nagdeman (1980) 110 Cal. App.3d 404, 410 [ 168 Cal. Rptr. 16 ]; People v. Lester (1980) 101 Cal. App.3d 613, 615 [161 Cal. Rptr. *340 703]; People v. Evans (1977) 65 Cal. App.3d 924, 933-936 [ 134 Cal. Rptr. 436 ]; People v. Williams (1975) 51 Cal. App.3d 346, 350 [ 123 Cal. Rptr. 891 ]; People v. Furman (1973) 30 Cal. App.3d 454, 457 [ 106 Cal. Rptr. 366 ].) Defendant argues that, standing alone, statistics disclosing a high relative frequency of drug traffic from Florida afford an insufficient basi…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Matthews (2×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
In Doe v. Renfrow (N.D.Ind. 1979) 475 F.Supp. 1012, 1020 , there was no independent information by school authorities who used detector dogs to sniff out narcotics on person of students in a public school; the court held it was “a minimal intrusion at best and not so serious as to invoke the protections of the Fourth Amendment.” (P. 1020.) Various state authorities also approve the use of narcotic detector dogs; few cases discuss whether sniffing of the air around an object by detector dogs constitutes a search although some hold that it does and if not based on reasonable suspicion consti…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Nagdeman
Cal. Ct. App. · 1980 · confidence medium
We have consistently held reliable trained dogs may be used to corroborate an informant’s tip on the presence of narcotics in specific pieces of luggage (see People v. Furman (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 454, 457 [ 106 Cal.Rptr. 366 ]; People v. Lester (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 613, 615 [ 161 Cal.Rptr. 703 .]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Beale (2×)
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also People v. Lester, 101 Cal.App.3d 613 , 161 Cal.Rptr. 703 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 919 , 101 S.Ct. 316 , 66 L.Ed.2d 146 (1980); People v. Furman, 30 Cal.App.3d 454 , 106 Cal.Rptr. 366 (1973). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. John Christopher Beale (2×)
9th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also People v. Lester, 101 Cal.App.3d 613 , 161 Cal.Rptr. 703 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 919 , 101 S.Ct. 316 , 66 L.Ed.2d 146 (1980); People v. Furman, 30 Cal.App.3d 454 , 106 Cal.Rptr. 366 (1973) 19 In the present case, the luggage sniffed was located in an airport baggage room removed from the vicinity of its owners and other travelers.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Diane Doe, Etc. v. Omer Renfrow, Etc.
7th Cir. · 1980 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Klein, 626 F.2d 22 (7th Cir. 1980), Part II of op. dealing with canine sniffing of luggage (at 26-27) and People v. Lester, 101 Cal.App.3d 613 (1980), certiorari denied sub nom.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
ROY JOHN LESTER, Defendant and Appellant
Crim. 11239.
California Court of Appeal.
Jan 30, 1980.
101 Cal. App. 3d 613
Counsel, Savitz & McCabe, Michael J. McCabe, Beeson & Rakley and Martin Lee Rakley for Defendant and Appellant., George Deukmejian, Attorney General, Robert H. Philibosian, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Daniel J. Kremer, Assistant Attorney General, Jay M. Bloom and Alan S. Meth, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Brown (Gerald).
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Duster’s Detection

Roy Lester appeals the judgment after he pleaded guilty to possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5). He received probation upon conditions, among them confinement to the sheriffs custody for 120 days and 500 hours of volunteer work in San Diego. These conditions were stayed pending appeal.

Lester, a law student in San Diego, went to Florida for a couple of days and returned with more than 10 pounds of hashish. He got caught[*615] under circumstances where Duster the dog played no small part. Lester’s Fourth Amendment rights remained intact.

Alexander, a United States Department of Justice official in San Diego, received a tip from the Ft. Lauderdale sheriff’s office that Lester was suspected of carrying narcotics in his luggage on his flight to San Diego. A thorough description of Lester and his luggage was given. Alexander obtained the services of Duster and his handler from the United States Customs. When Lester’s flight arrived, his bag was placed on the conveyer belt for transportation to the public baggage area. Alexander, who with other agents had the right to be in the area, removed the bag and placed it in a group of nearby bags. Duster, an expert in narcotics detection, was released and strongly alerted on Lester’s bag, biting, gnawing, and scratching it. The bag was hidden from Duster in another group of bags close by. Again Duster alerted to it quickly. Alexander replaced the bag on the conveyer belt; the time from removal to replacement was insignificant, about three minutes. When Lester picked up the bag, an official asked him to accompany him to the harbor police office. Lester agreed. He was very nervous and urinated in his pants. When Lester refused permission to look in his bag, a search warrant was obtained and the contraband was revealed.

Without the need to cite other cases,[1] these facts speak for themselves and clearly show probable cause for the conduct of the officials. In truth they reflect the restraint which is wisely applauded by the judiciary as being paradigm conduct. Rather than precipitously taking action without probable cause, the officials carefully investigated without interfering with Lester’s rights, and at the proper moment, after developing a thorough case, arrested Lester.

Lester received exemplary legal representation, typical of the high standards of his trial attorney Robert Baxley.

Judgment affirmed.

1

E.g., Link’s Link with Destiny, A Short Tale, (People v. Furman (1973) 30 Cal. App.3d 454 [106 Cal.Rptr. 366]; Bourbon’s Nose Knows, or The Case of Bourbon’s Bust, People v. Williams (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 346 [124 Cal.Rptr. 253]).

Concurrence

Cologne, J., and Staniforth, J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied February 19, 1980, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied April 10, 1980. Newman, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari on October 20, 1980.