The opinion
*189 CARTER, J.
I concur in the conclusion reached in the majority opinion that the writ should be denied. My concurrence is based solely upon the ground that the narcotic found on the person of petitioner was received in evidence without objection and was sufficient to establish probable cause for holding petitioner to answer. I have reached this conclusion reluctantly because a reading of the record discloses that petitioner’s counsel was evidently of the opinion that the objection he had previously interposed to the questions asked the witness Rinken were sufficient to cover the questions relating to the identification of the narcotic, but such is not the case, and the majority opinion is correct in its statement that the narcotic was received in evidence without objection.
There is no question in my mind whatsoever that on the facts disclosed by the record, the arrest and search of petitioner was illegal and unjustified under all of the authorities since People v. Cahan, 44 Cal.2d 434 [ 282 P.2d 905 , 50 A.L.R. 2d 513 ], and People v. Berger, 44 Cal.2d 459 [ 282 P.2d 509 ], and if appropriate objection is made to the introduction of the evidence obtained as a result of such unlawful arrest and search at the trial of the case, it should be sustained.