Opinion
Page 1021a
149 Cal.App.4th 1021a __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMAR LINDSEY, Defendant and Appellant. A113628 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fourth Division April 18, 2007Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 5-051007-3.
ORDER DENYING REHEARING AND MODIFYING OPINION [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
THE COURT:
Plaintiff’s petition for rehearing is denied. The opinion filed on March 27, 2007, (148 Cal.App.4th 1390; ___Cal. Rptr. 3d___), is modified as follows, and petition for rehearing is DENIED:
1. Delete the fourth sentence from the second paragraph of Factual and Procedural Background [148 Cal.App.4th 1393, advance report, 3d full par., line 5], "He did recall that the caller was 'very frightened of retaliation.' "
2. Delete the third sentence in the eighteenth paragraph under Discussion [148 Cal.App.4th 1401, advance report, 2d full par., line 4], "Blazer was informed that she was 'very frightened of retaliation,' " and replace it with the following language:
Blazer also testified that the area “ha[d] our particular interest because of the amount of gang activity, specifically the Norteno gang that is in that area and high level of drug activity that goes on in that area. I have investigated prior homicides and shootings in that area.”
3. Delete footnote three [148 Cal.App.4th 1394, advance report, footnote 3], and replace it with the following language:
Blazer described the initiation of the patsearch at least three times. He testified at the preliminary hearing that he told defendant he “wanted” to patsearch him, and at the hearing on the motion to suppress that he “needed” to patsearch him. He also testified at the suppression hearing that he told defendant, “I am going to pat search you.” The trial court concluded that the detention began at this point, a reasonable conclusion based on Blazer’s testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress.
The above modification does not effect any change in the judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.264(c).)