## Facts

- James Martin was charged by information with two counts of horse-race bookmaking (Cal. Penal Code § 337a(1)) and two counts of keeping/occupying premises for bookmaking (§ 337a(2)).
- The charges were based on evidence obtained in two police raids on small office premises on Ventura Boulevard in Los Angeles (April 20 and April 26, 1955).
- On April 20, officers went to an office, looked through a mail chute, knocked, identified themselves, and were admitted after Martin opened the door.
- Inside, officers observed items associated with bookmaking activity, including telephones, blackboards (one appearing recently wiped), chalk, and a racing “scratch sheet.”
- Officers stayed about an hour and answered incoming calls in which callers placed horse-race bets.
- An officer opined the location functioned as a “relay spot” for transmitting bets.
- On April 26, officers conducted a second raid at another office; the remaining counts were based on what officers found there.
- Martin denied ownership of either premises and denied any interest in the seized items, but moved to set aside the information under Penal Code § 995, arguing the prosecution’s evidence was the product of unconstitutional searches and seizures.
- The trial court granted the § 995 motion and set aside the information; the People appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant who denies ownership or possessory interest in the premises or items searched may still challenge the constitutionality of the search and seizure and seek exclusion of the resulting evidence.
2. Whether the information should be set aside when the prosecution’s evidence is derived from searches found unlawful.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court affirmed the order setting aside the information.
- The court held Martin could contest the searches and seizures despite disclaiming ownership or possession of the premises and property searched.
- Because the prosecution’s case depended on evidence obtained through unlawful searches and seizures, the § 995 dismissal was proper.

## Legal Principles

- The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right and cannot be conditioned on a defendant admitting ownership or possession that could be incriminating.
- The prosecution may not argue facts connecting a defendant to criminal activity for purposes of guilt while using the defendant’s denial of ownership to defeat the defendant’s ability to invoke constitutional protections against unlawful searches.
- When the material evidence supporting an information is obtained through unlawful searches and seizures, setting aside the information under Penal Code § 995 is warranted.

## Conclusion

The court held that a defendant does not forfeit the right to challenge unlawful searches by denying ownership or possession of the searched premises or seized items, and it affirmed dismissal of the information where the prosecution relied on evidence obtained through illegal searches.


People v. Martin, 290 P.2d 855 (Cal. 1955)