The opinion
TRAYNOR, J.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of one count of possessing marijuana in violation of Health and Safety Code, section 11500. ’He also appeals from an order that he claims was entered denying his motion for a new trial. The record, however, does not disclose that a motion for a new trial was made or that an order denying it was entered. The latter appeal must therefore be dismissed.
Officers McCann and Price of the Oakland Police Department were on automobile patrol duty during the evening of July 21, 1954. At about 11 o ’clock, while driving in a southerly direction on Poplar Street near 21st Street, they observed a car parked on the opposite side of the street headed in the opposite direction. As they passed the car, Officer McCann turned his spotlight on it and saw two men sitting in the front seat. He testified: . . it is a lover’s lane. If it had been a female and a male I wouldn’t have thought too much of it but two males in that vicinity I figured we had better check it out and as I brought the patrol car around to make a U-turn on Poplar Street the suspects’ ear took off. They spun their wheels taking off at a high rate of speed. They turned right onto 21st Street and proceeded up 21st Street and turned right again on Union Street which would put them heading in a southern direction again on Union Street and they turned east on 19th Street and all this time I had the red light and siren on and I brought the patrol car on up there on their left rear and very close and stopped them in front of 1181-19th Street.” Officer McCann approached the car from the left, and Officer Price from the right, and one of them flashed his flashlight into the car. Robert Dial, who later pleaded guilty to the charge of possession of marijuana, was in the driver’s seat. Defendant was sitting on the right-hand side of the front seat. Dial’s right hand and defendant’s left hand were on the center of the seat. The officers ordered the suspects to put their hands in front of them, and when they did so Officer McCann saw a small bag in the middle of the front seat that had been covered by their hands. The officers ordered the suspects *108 out of the car, and after searching them for weapons Officer McCann reached into the car and took the bag. He examined it and concluded that it contained marijuana. Later analysis confirmed this conclusion.
Defendant contends that the search of the automobile without a warrant was unlawful and that the evidence produced thereby was therefore inadmissible.
Although the presence of two men in a parked automobile on a lover’s lane at night was itself reasonable cause for police investigation (see People v. Simon, 45 Cal.2d 645, 649-651 [ 290 P.2d 531 ]; Gisske v. Sanders, 9 Cal.App. 13, 16-17 [ 98 P. 43 ]), their sudden flight from the officers and the inference that could reasonably be drawn therefrom that they were guilty of some crime (United States v. Heitner, 149 F.2d 105, 107 ), left no doubt not only as to the reasonableness but as to the necessity for an investigation. (Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694, 700-701 [ 51 S.Ct. 240 , 75 L.Ed. 629 , 74 A.L.R. 1407 ]; Talley v. United States, 159 F.2d 703 ; Levine v. United States, 138 F.2d 627, 628-629 ; Jones v. United States, 131 F.2d 539, 541 .) Under these circumstances the officers were justified in taking precautionary measures to assure their own safety on overtaking the suspects, and it was therefore reasonable for them to order the suspects to put their hands in front of them and to get out of the automobile to be searched for weapons before being questioned. When Officer McCann saw the bag that was uncovered when the suspects removed their hands, he had reasonable cause to believe that their possession of it prompted the flight and that it contained contraband. He was therefore justified in taking it from the automobile. (Carrol v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 149 [ 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 , 39 A.L.R. 790 ]; Husty v. United States, supra, 282 U.S. 694, 700-701 ; Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251, 255 [ 59 S.Ct. 174 , 83 L.Ed. 151 ]; Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 165-171 [ 69 S.Ct. 1302 , 93 L.Ed. 1879 ]; United States v. One 1946 Plymouth Sedan Automobile, 167 F.2d 3, 7 .)
The judgment is affirmed, and the appeal from an alleged order denying a motion for new trial is dismissed.]
Gibson, C. J., Shenk, J., Schauer, J., Spence, J., and McComb, J., concurred.