In what circumstances was reasonable cause for the arrest of defendants on suspicion of a charge of possession of a prohibited substance under the Mental Health Act?

In our opinion, there was reasonable cause for the arrest of defendants. The officers had learned from a reliable informant that the apartment was being used by bookmakers as a 'call out spot'. They placed the apartment under observation during three consecutive days and saw defendants arrive in the late morning and leave in the early evening. Although they did not see or hear what defendants were doing inside the apartment, they saw no one else enter or leave. It was a reasonable inference that defendants did not [157 Cal.App.2d 162] live in the apartment. While the fact that defendants regularly came around 10 a. m. and left around 6 p. m. would have no significance to the ordinary layman, the officers were familiar with the habits of bookmakers and were justified in acting upon their knowledge that these were the business hours of the professional bookmaker. Defendants make the point that they might have been in the apartment for any one of a number of legitimate purposes, and that no inference adverse to them can validly be drawn solely on account of their presence in the apartment. However, an analagous contention was advanced and rejected in People v. Fischer, 49 Cal.2d 442, 317 P.2d 967. In that case, sheriff's deputies had information that bookmaking was being conducted over a specified telephone number at a particular address; the deputies went to the location; one of the deputies telephoned the number and attempted unsuccessfully to place a bet with an unknown man inside the premises; the deputies saw the accused step outside the front door with a racing form in his hand immediately after the conversation and just as the deputies were approaching. The court held that the arrest of Fischer was based upon

Page 531

Since the arrest was lawful, the officers had the right to make a reasonable search of the premises under the immediate control of defendants and to seize evidence related to the offense. People v. Winston, 46 Cal.2d 151, 161-163, 293 P.2d 40, and cases cited. Thus a reasonable search of the car in which defendants were riding was proper and the evidence obtained thereby was not to be excluded. However, with respect to the search of the apartment, defendants argue that the premises were located more than half a block from the place where they were apprehended, and that the apartment was not in the immediate vicinity of the arrest, hence a search of the apartment cannot be justified as an incident to the arrest. The argument is without merit.