Opinion
B330686
04-22-2024
In re K.E., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. K.E., Defendant and Appellant. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Marc A. Kohm, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CM0210A. Melissa N. Widdifield, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Idan Ivri and Marc A. Kohm, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
GRIMES, ACTING P. J.
K.E., a 15-year-old, was charged with being a minor in possession of a firearm in violation of Penal Code section 29610, subdivision (a). After his motion to suppress was denied, K.E. admitted the allegation. The juvenile court sustained the petition, declared K.E. a ward of the court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, and ordered him home on probation. K.E. now challenges the juvenile court's order denying his motion to suppress.
We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2023, a petition was filed charging K.E. with one count of misdemeanor possession of a firearm by a minor (Pen. Code, § 29610, subd. (a)). K.E. moved to suppress the handgun recovered from the waistband of his pants at the time of his detention. (Welf. &Inst. Code, § 700.1.) K.E. argued his constitutional rights were violated when he was detained without reasonable suspicion, and the patdown search conducted during that unlawful detention resulted in the discovery of the handgun.
On July 25, 2023, a hearing was held on K.E.'s motion. Detective Luis Torres of the Los Angeles Police Department testified. Detective Torres is a member of the Operation Safe Streets division, a specialized unit performing gang suppression and investigations involving criminal street gangs.
On the evening of June 9, 2022, just after 7:30 p.m., while there was still some evening light, Detective Torres was on patrol with his partner, Detective Moreno, in the "Florence Firestone Area" of south Los Angeles. Detective Torres testified that particular area has regular activity from multiple gangs and is known as a high crime area. Within that general area, Beach Boulevard near 92nd Street is claimed by the South Side Watts gang.
Detective Torres saw four Hispanic males standing close together on the west side of Beach Boulevard. He recognized one of the males, a member of the Wynos clique of the South Side Watts street gang with the moniker "Gangster," who was on probation. Detective Torres said he had previously handled a search warrant in an investigation where "Gangster" was suspected of disposing of a handgun.
Detective Torres said the four individuals were standing next to a white wall that appeared to have "fresh graffiti." The letters W-N-S were painted in blue paint that seemed freshly painted because of how bright the blue color appeared. Detective Torres said he regularly patrolled the area, and that particular graffiti had not been there in the past few days.
Detective Torres and his partner stopped their car. All four individuals turned, looked at Detective Torres, and immediately started walking away in different directions as Detective Torres walked towards them. Three other detectives (Sanchez, Bearer and Ordonez) who were patrolling in other vehicles also stopped.
Detective Torres approached one of the individuals who had walked around the corner and appeared to be urinating on the wall. On the ground only two or three feet away from him was a spray paint can with a blue cap, the same color as the graffiti on the wall.
Detective Torres heard Detective Ordonez telling K.E. at least twice to place his hands behind his back. Detective Torres went to assist Detective Ordonez. K.E. was holding both arms out straight in front of him, resisting Detective Ordonez. When Detective Torres placed his hand on K.E.'s left arm, he tried to pull away and reached toward his waistband. The detectives were able to place K.E. against the wall and gain control. Detective Torres lifted K.E.'s shirt and saw a black semiautomatic firearm tucked into the right front waistband of his pants.
Detective Torres testified on cross-examination he did not see K.E. spraying paint on the wall and did not see any paint on his hands or clothes.
The juvenile court denied K.E.'s motion. The court explained that Detective Torres's body camera video was consistent with his testimony and supported a finding there was reasonable suspicion for a detention and further investigation.
After the court's ruling, the parties agreed to a disposition. The court accepted K.E.'s waivers on the record and his admission to the charge of possession of a firearm. The court sustained the petition, declared K.E. a ward of the court, ordered him home on probation on specified terms and conditions, and released him to his mother.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
K.E. contends the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to suppress pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 700.1. (In re Steven H. (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 449, 453 [a motion pursuant to Welf. &Inst. Code, § 700.1 is "the juvenile court counterpart to the adult Penal Code section 1538.5 motion" to suppress].)
We review the denial of K.E.'s motion according to the familiar standard. We defer to the juvenile" 'court's factual findings, express or implied, where supported by substantial evidence. In determining whether, on the facts so found, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, we exercise our independent judgment.'" (People v. Redd (2010) 48 Cal.4th 691, 719; see also In re Lisa G. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 801, 805 [applying standard of review for motions to suppress under Pen. Code, § 1538.5 to juvenile court motion to suppress].) Based on our review of the factual record, we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's findings and that the detention and patdown search of K.E. were reasonable and did not offend the Fourth Amendment.
An investigatory detention and patdown search for officer safety, otherwise referred to as a Terry stop, is constitutional when a law enforcement officer has "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the detention. (Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, 21 (Terry).) The detention must be justified by an objective manifestation, based on the totality of the circumstances, "that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity." (United States v. Cortez (1981) 449 U.S. 411, 417; accord, People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224, 230 ["the temporary detention of a person for the purpose of investigating possible criminal activity may, because it is less intrusive than an arrest, be based on 'some objective manifestation' that criminal activity is afoot and that the person to be stopped is engaged in that activity"].) The officer may "for the protection of himself and others . . . conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him." (Terry, at p. 30.)
"When discussing how reviewing courts should make reasonable-suspicion determinations, we have said repeatedly that they must look at the 'totality of the circumstances' of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a 'particularized and objective basis' for suspecting legal wrongdoing. [Citation.] This process allows officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that 'might well elude an untrained person.'" (United States v. Arvizu (2002) 534 U.S. 266, 273 (Arvizu).) Individual facts must not be considered in isolation.
Nor is it proper to focus on whether an innocent explanation may exist for the suspect's conduct."' "[T]he possibility of an innocent explanation does not deprive the officer of the capacity to entertain a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct."' [Citations.] 'What is required is not the absence of innocent explanation, but the existence of "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion."' [Citation.] Although each of a series of acts may be' "perhaps innocent in itself,"' taken together, they may' "warrant[] further investigation."' [Citation.] The purpose of the detention is to resolve the ambiguity by allowing the officer to briefly investigate further." (People v. Brown (2015) 61 Cal.4th 968, 985-986; Arvizu, supra, 534 U.S. at pp. 274-275 [acts which may appear innocent when considered alone can, when "taken together," amount to reasonable suspicion justifying an officer's belief that further investigation is warranted].)
K.E. says he was merely standing by a graffiti-covered wall in a high crime area and exercised his right to walk away from approaching officers.
But the proper analysis is to assess all of the facts available to Detective Torres, who was an experienced officer working in a specialized gang unit. Detective Torres "was entitled to make an assessment of the situation in light of his specialized training and familiarity with the customs of the area's inhabitants." (Arvizu, supra, 534 U.S. at p. 276.) Detective Torres saw four males standing "huddled in a group" next to a wall with what appeared to be fresh graffiti spelling out W-N-S, known gang initials. He regularly patrolled the neighborhood and was aware of the competing gangs in the area, including the South Side Watts gang and one of its cliques known as the Wynos. He knew one of the males was a member of the Wynos and was on probation. From his regular patrols, he knew W-N-S had not been painted on that wall in the past few days. K.E. and the three other males he was with all immediately started walking away in different directions when Detective Torres approached them. The individual Detective Torres approached first was urinating next to a can of spray paint that had a cap the same blue color as the new graffiti. Detective Torres also knew the area to be a high crime area. (Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 124 [law enforcement officers are "not required to ignore the relevant characteristics of a location in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation"; the fact the detection occurs in a "high crime area" is a "relevant contextual consideration[]"].)
These facts, considered together, supported Detective Torres's reasonable suspicion that the group of males, which included K.E., were engaged in acts of vandalism and his judgment that further investigation was warranted. The detectives were still collecting information when Detective Ordonez tried to detain K.E., ordering him to put his hands behind his back. Instead of complying, K.E. struggled with the officers to prevent them putting his hands behind his back. After the officers gained control of him, K.E. tried to pull away from them and reached for his waistband. At that point, a patdown search was justified for officer safety. Like the officer in Terry, Detective Torres performed a minimally intrusive search, merely lifting up K.E.'s shirt at the waistband area where K.E. had been reaching. (Terry, supra, 392 U.S. at p. 30.) The handgun was readily visible and was taken from K.E.'s waistband without further intrusive searching. The juvenile court did not err in denying K.E.'s motion to suppress the handgun.
DISPOSITION
The order of wardship is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: WILEY, J., VIRAMONTES, J.