# Petition — Ruggles v. California > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1798%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1981 - **Citation:** 453 U.S. 919 ## Text 80-5677 SUPREME COURT OF THE unrTeD states NOV10 1980 OFFICE OF THE CLERK OCTOBER TERM, 1980 SU COURT, US. IN THE NO. 80 - DAVID WENDELL RUGGLES, Petitioner, - against - PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ._ Respondent. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TEPHEN YAGMAN Attorney for Petitioner 10880 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1900 Los Angeles, California 90024 (213) 475-4988 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE NO. Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (1979) ........-. - passim Carroll Vv... United. States, 267°U.8... 132. 2925) wecwre 8 Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) ..... 8, 9 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) ......... 8 People v. Minjares, 24 Cal. 3d 410, 591 P.2d 514, 153 Cal. Rptr. 224, cert. denied, 434 U-S. DON AIOTES Sin és. doe cee ee Ree ns be wok United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1 (1977) ....... 9 STATUTES oe i Nw Sy FRAN ae CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ice, Gone. GE Ee Sis ceece oes BES we ee dik a wa’ eee ate 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1980 NO. 80 = DAVID WENDELL RUGGLES, Petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. TO: THE HONORABLE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Petitioner, DAVID WENDELL RUGGLES, respectfully requests that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of California, which denied a Petition for Hearing from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the State af California, Second Appellate District, affirming petitioner's conviction for robbery and possession of a firearm by an ex felon. OPINION BELOW The Supreme Court of the State of California denied Petitioner's Petition for Hearing by postcard (Annexed hereto as Appendix A). There is no other written opinion from the California Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District tenein, J.) rendered a written opinion, which has not been published, annexed hereto as Appendix B. JURISDICTION The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of California was entered on August 13, 1980, and is annexed hereto as Appendix A. The federal question was raised for the first time when petitioner, represented by appointed counsel, made a timely motion to suppress certain evidence seized at the time of petitioner's arrest. The question was preserved on appeal to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of the State of Cal- ifornia. No application for an extension of time to file this petition has been sought. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1257(3). QUESTION PRESENTED Was the warrantless search of petitioner's briefcase, while it was under the exclusive control of the police, invalid thereby necessitating the granting of petitioner's motion to suppress? STATEMENT OF THE CASE Petitioner, DAVID WENDELL RUGGLES, was ~«rested on January 3, 1979, and charged in a two-count information . with robbery and use of a weapon, and with possession of a firearm by an ex-felon. The information subsequently was amended to reflect six prior convictions. Petitioner was arraigned on the original charges on February 5, 1979 after private counsel was appointed to represent him, and on the priors on February 27, 1979, entering pleas of not guilty ‘ ee .° aS and denying the priors. (Clerk's Transcript on Appeal at 1-7). Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress, and a hearing on the motion was held on March 29, 1979. Following testimony and oral argument, the motion was denied (Clerk's Transcript at 20), whereupon petitioner was permitted to change his earlier plea to gailty on the first count of the amended information (robbery and use of a weapon), and to admit three prior felony convictions. On motion of the district attorney, the additional counts of the information were dis- missed (Clerk's Transcript at 21-22). Defendant's plea was accepted by the court and thereupon, he was sentenced to a term in the state prison for a total of dine years less a credit for 85 days already spent in custody. On appeal to the Court of Appeal of the State of California, petitioner raised several points in support of reversal ineludiie the issue of unlawful search preserved here, citing the decision of the California Supreme Court in People v. Minjares, 24 Cal. 3d 410, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 998 (1979), and the decision of this Court in Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753 (1979). The appellate court concluded that there had been no unconstitutional search (Appendix B at 10-13), citing extensively from the dissenting opinion in Sanders. A Petition for Hearing filed in the Supreme Court of the State of California was denied on August 13, 1980. STATEMENT OF FACTS In late November, 1978, Sergeant Morosky of the Los Angeles Police Department Intelligence Division received information from an informant that petitioner had participated oS re ee ees . . _— — . Sone . as " -* pe " A ‘ . atk hn : da” th Ne prot ee a) y ae ed cee Se tae. wee” pase esr ’s | ovr : RRR AS SA, Chey ct) oe ee, 2 LEER ant 1 WA Pine ght. pnt David Wendell Ruggles appeals his conviction, pursuant to guilty plea, on one count of robbery with the use of a firearm in the commission of the offense. FACTS Defendant Ruggles was charged in a two count information with (1) robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) alleging use of a firearm in the commission of the offense (Pen, Code, §§ 12022.5, 1203.06) and (2) possession of a firearm by an ex-felon (Pen. Code, § 12021). The information was subsequently amended to reflect six prior convictions and the case was consolidated with a second case in which a single count was charged against defendant Ruggles. Defendant pleaded not guilty, denied the priors and filed a 1538.5 motion to suppress which the trial court denied. Defendant thereupon changed his plea to guilty on the first count of the amended information (robbery and use of a weapon) and he admitted three of the prior felony convictions charged. On motion of the district attorney the second count (possession of a firearm by an ex-felon) and the single count in the second case were dismissed. Probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to state prison for nine years (four years for robbery, a consecutive two year sentence for the admitted use of a firearm, and three consecutive one year terms for the three ° 4 7 > oruaaneetresstingmaivennans — oat nena reng eee Oe oem eee ee seem ee Sen oe ae need ad Be i : “ ‘ ve) TB AL PST Rk ae hae 0 Stee See te admitted prior convictions [Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)]). The People's motion to dismiss the remaining prior convictions was granted. Defendant Ruggles has appealed his conviction complaining that the trial court erred in denying his 1538.5 motion to suppress certain evidence obtained from a search of the vehicle he was driving at the time of his arrest. The record includes certain portions of the preliminary hearing transcript which trial court considered pursuant to stipulation. In July 1978 there was a robbery at the Nutel Motel and Ruggles, who was identified by Mr. John Carragher, the manager, was subsequently apprehended by police officers on suspicion of this crime. Defendant's arrest came about as the result of an investigation by Officer Robert McSeveney of the Los Angeles Police Department. At the 1538.5 hearing Officer McSeveney testified that in November of 1978 he received information from Sergeant Morosky that Ruggles had participated in various armed robberies including the robbery with an accomplice of a motel in Los Angeles; that Ruggles was on parole for armed robbery; that he lived in San Pedro and drove a black over red Mercury Montego; and that he was a Caucasian male approxi- mately 39 years old, 6 feet tall and weighed around 200 pounds. Pyne” (1977) 433 U.S. 1; People v. Dalton (1979) 24 Cal.3d 850; People v. Minjares, supra, 24 Cal.3d 410.) In fact, federal courts have upheld the search of luggage under the automobile exception where, for instance, oe te ee ee there was probable cause for the. search and the suitcase was closely related to the reason for the arrest. (United States vy. Tramunti (2d Circ. 1975) 513 F.2d 1087 at 1104; see 2lso United States v. Finnegan (9th Cire. 1977) 568 F.2d 637.) Finally, under the circumstances of the case at bench obtaining a warrant would be a mere formality. Since the police already had probable cause to search the attache case, a warrant would have been routinely forthcoming. (See a Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) 442 U.S. 753, 770 (dissenting opinion).) Even if a warrant is required, the end result is the same -- the inevitable discovery of the instrumentalities of the crime. Therefore, the doctrine of inevitable discovery permits the evidence to be admitted as: an exception since the warrant requirement would not produce the desired effect. (People v. Superior Court (Tunch), supra, 80 Cal.App.3d 665.) In fact, to enforce the warrant requirement would be likely to have an adverse practical effect since it might unjustly grant criminals immunity from prosecution. (See Novikoff, The Inevitable Discovery Exception to the Constitutional Exclusionary Rules (1974) 74 Colum.L.Rev. 88.) In any event, there is no logical distinction between searching a trunk and searching luggage found in the trunk, since there is no reason for greater expectation of privacy. (Arkansas v. Sanders, supra, 442 U.S. 753, 769 (dissenting opinion),) In the present case, there was no showing of expectation of privacy since although the ‘trunk was locked, the briefcase was in fact unlocked and the shaving kit type bag inside was unzipped. Moreover, once an individual is in police custody and his personal property has been seized, the additional intrusion of a search of luggage is at best only incidental. (Arkansas v. Sanders, supra, p. 770.) "Where it is shown that a suspect would have been Se CEE A I OR ee ———— ———_ ee - ee Se le «CD jailed and thus subject to a booking search, the fact that a thorough search of the booking type occurs pridr to the : actual booking process does not render the search illegal, - - since no additional or greater intrusion on the privacy of the suspect is involved. (People v. Barajas, 81 Cal.App.3d 999, 1008-1009; People v. Flores, 100 Cal.App.3d 221, 229- 230; see People v. Superior Court (Simon), 7 Cal.3d 186, 208-209; People y. Longwill, 14 Cal.3d 943, 948; People v. Brown, 88 Cap.App.3d 283, 293.)" (People v. Bullwinkle (Apr. 24, 1980, 2 Crim. Nos. 33763 and 34931) ___ Cal.App.3d -) DISPOSITION In view of the fact that the 1538.5 motion to suppress was properly denied the judgment of conviction is affirmed. HANSON, J. We concur: LILLIE, Acting P.J. RADIN, J.* * Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council. al 80 - 5677 RECEIVED | a NOV 1 0 1980 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, U.S, OCTOBER TERM, 1980 NO. 80 - DAVID WENDELL RUGGLES, Petitioner, - against - STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 4 °o THE HONORABLE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. Petitioner DAVID WENDELL RUGGLES respectfully seeks leave to proceed here in forma pauperis without payment of fees and costs. Counsel's affidavit in support of this application is annexed. Route YAGMAN Attorney for Petitioner 10880 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1900 Los Angeles, California 90024 (213) 475-4988 Los Angeles, California November 6, 1980 af 5 tat eae ep qeeweer ~ rsh Dieta Ye } Zo yy ee ce = 40 - in pee Lg it) pn de hs at a en * yet 4 she TT PEN cue in Eee Lie ate athe ak Ragen -tbdey! Smee ae: Soaks /nemans oote te 1 CORRE Ra etd GF ah Shes Sod Rr eS e168 Ye bot ab Sp ase axe Ae Yt ae x a ke ga fyi mihtex stab > We het Ca Ee iD » ” * : » ; ee io ae rg ST WE gs caning am vt pel i ee ee ~~ ee he ee ee ee yO eee), OEE a RECEIVED IN THE NOV 10 1980 ) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES rattan ena Rr, Un OCTOBER TERM, 1980 NO. 80 = DAVID WENDELL RUGGLES, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. ; \ AFFIDAVIT OF STEPHEN YAGMAN STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES sufficient funds to retain private counsel. I am presently incarcerated in the state prison at Vacaville, California, and am unable to obtain funds to pay the fees and costs required by this Court, or to retain private counsel. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this application for leave to proceed here in forma pauperis be granted. DATED: lov. 5 14 fy OFFICIAL SEAL D. G. CAPRIO TARY Soe Le Smee incipal Office in SOLANO Cou My Commission Expires June 21, 9 a AVID WEN UGGLE Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5A day of Mol. » 1980. NOTARY LIC --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1798%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.