How has section 836 of the California Highway Traffic Code been interpreted by courts in cases involving two police officers?

In Freeman v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles (1969) 70 Cal.2d 235, 74 Cal.Rptr. 259, 449 P.2d 195; an analogous case, one peace officer stopped respondent for suspicion of drunk driving. The officer then radioed for assistance and a second officer responded. After learning from the first officer what he had observed and determining from his own observations that respondent was indeed intoxicated, And being told by the respondent himself that he, the respondent, had been driving the vehicle at the time it was stopped, the second officer placed respondent under arrest for drunk driving. Since the first officer had seen the alleged offense and related his observations to the second officer and had participated in the arrest, the requirement of section 836, that the offense be within the officer's 'presence,' was fulfilled.