Opinion
E043403
9-5-2008
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VIRGIL MEAKINS, Defendant and Appellant.
David L. Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, and James Dutton and Melissa Mandel, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Not to be Published
Defendant Virgil Meakins was charged with possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351, count 1), false personation (Pen. Code, § 529, count 2), and possession of marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359, count 3)). It was also alleged that count 1 was committed within 1000 feet of a school (Health & Saf. Code, § 11353.6, subd. (b)), that defendant had served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and that he had three prior strike convictions (§§ 1170.12, subd. (a)-(d) and 667, subd. (b)-(i)). Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5 (the motion). The court held a suppression hearing and denied the motion. Subsequently, defendant entered a plea agreement, pled guilty to count 1, and admitted one strike prior. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed pursuant to the plea agreement. The court sentenced defendant to a total of eight years in state prison. Defendant now appeals the denial of the motion to suppress. We affirm.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
FACTS
The statement of facts is taken from the suppression hearing transcript.
On the morning of December 17, 2004, more than 20 police officers and/or parole agents participated in the execution of search warrants at 361 West Winchester, apartments Nos. 1 and 2, and 351 West Winchester, apartment No. 2 (hereafter, 351), in Rialto. The warrant for 361 West Winchester, apartment No. 1 (hereinafter, 361) described the residence as a building that housed four apartment units, with apartment No. 1 located at the front of the building on the north side. The warrant also permitted the search of "any and all storage sheds and outbuildings on the property with the common address of 361 [W]est Winchester, #1, Rialto, Ca." The property to be seized included rock cocaine and any items used to conceal, distribute, sell, buy or use controlled substances. The Winchester apartment complex had a high crime rate and had been the site of homicides, rapes, attempted murders, gang activity, and illegal drug activity. Generally, in these types of operations, officers were assigned to contain the area to be searched and detain any people trying to flee the area.
Detective Paul Stella was in charge of the execution of two of the search warrants. He testified that in the targeted area, people were being used as lookouts, and drugs were being obtained from the apartments and sold near and around the alley. Detective Stella explained to the officers and agents participating in the execution of the warrants that people in the area were known to hide guns in carports, in holes in the walls, and in the ventilation systems. He had personally recovered numerous assault weapons and guns from the carport area. Therefore, he assigned officers and agents to detain people in the alley for officer safety reasons.
Parole Agent Steven Day participated in the execution of the search warrant for 361. He testified at the hearing on the motion that he was told there would be individuals in the south alley near the apartments who were involved in illegal drug activity. He was assigned to enter the south alley of Winchester and detain anyone who was seen coming from the targeted areas while the search warrant was being executed. The reasons for detaining people were to prevent them from fleeing and to ensure the safety of the officers performing the search. Agent Day and Officer Heidi Meyer were in the first vehicle to arrive at the scene. When they arrived, Agent Day observed some people begin to run away, while others began walking away, from the area that was the focus of the search warrant. There were approximately 20 apartments in the alley, but defendant was closest to 361. He was between the carport and the gate of 361. When Agent Day first saw him, defendant was coming from the area of 361 and walking quickly in Agent Days direction toward 351, which was next door to 361. Agent Day detained defendant at gunpoint and told him to get down on the ground and lie in a prone position. Agent Day did not know what defendants connection was with the premises; he only knew that defendant was coming from the targeted area of 361. Agent Day then placed defendant in handcuffs and patted him down for weapons. Defendant was wearing a heavy jacket, so Agent Day did not feel any weapons or any type of bulge. Agent Day detained defendant for 5-10 minutes, and then Officer Hector Santana arrived and took custody of him.
Officer Santana was initially parked in an unmarked police car at a different apartment complex, the Lilac Arbors, which was next to the Winchester apartments. He was assigned a perimeter position and was supposed to make sure that if anybody ran from the area, he would detain and identify them. Aside from assisting with the execution of the search warrants, he was investigating other homicides and shootings in the neighborhood of the Winchester apartments. He noted there were a block wall and a gate that joined the Lilac Arbors apartments to the Winchester apartments via the alley. He could see numerous people standing in the alleyway. When the parole agents and police officers arrived in the alley, Officer Santana saw several people start running, and others start walking away, including defendant. He saw defendant walking east. Officer Santana then got out of his unmarked unit and started running toward the wall in case anyone jumped over it. He lost sight of people during that time. Officer Santana testified that when he first entered the alley, there were several people who had already been detained, including defendant. Officer Santana asked if they had been searched, and the other officers told him that they had not. Officer Santana took one person at a time into a carport, searched them, and asked them questions. Officer Santana said he performed a cursory patdown search of defendant for weapons, concealed narcotics, or "whatnot." He felt a bulge and found over $100 and a small amount of rock cocaine in defendants pocket. Officer Santana detained defendant no more than five minutes. During that time, he never ascertained what defendants connection was to the premises. His main purpose in patting defendant down was for the safety of the officers who were executing the warrant. Officer Santana then notified Detective Stella about what he found on defendant.
Detective Stella arrested defendant. Defendant gave him a false name, and his true identity did not come out until after he was booked. Detective Stella testified that during the execution of the search warrants, he found approximately 76 grams of marijuana, packaged in five dollar bags for sale, and some rock cocaine at 351. Defendant was already arrested at the time the search warrant on 351 was executed. Detective Stella later Mirandized defendant at the police station and asked him about the items found at 351. Defendant admitted that he utilized the freezer inside 351 to hide his marijuana. He also admitted that the rock cocaine belonged to him. Through his investigation, Detective Stella determined that defendant was staying at 351.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 486.
DISCUSSION
The Trial Court Properly Denied the Suppression Motion
Defendant argues that the court improperly denied his motion to suppress the evidence of his confession that the drugs found belonged to him. He asserts there was no evidence to link him to the drugs absent his confession. He contends that since the confession was obtained solely as a result of his unlawful arrest, his confession should have been suppressed. In support of this position, he argues 1) the initial detention was unlawful because he was not on the premises to be searched, and he was not attempting to enter or leave the premises; 2) the patdown searches were not justified by the warrant; and 3) since the initial patdown search results were negative, he should have been released. We conclude the court properly denied the motion.
A. Standard of Review
"The standard of appellate review of a trial courts ruling on a motion to suppress is well established. We defer to the trial courts 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. [Citations.]" (People v. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362 (Glaser).)
B. The Courts Ruling
The court spent a great deal of time considering the motion before issuing its ruling. The court stated there was a valid search warrant for 361. The court focused its analysis on whether the detention and search of defendant were within the scope of the warrant. The court stated that since there was a valid search warrant, the burden was on the defense. It then cited Glaser, supra, 11 Cal.4th 354, and relied on it heavily. The court noted that the area was known for its high crime rate, which accounted for the police interest in officer safety. The court added that the police had an interest in preventing the flight of people with possible evidence at the scene and in determining the connection of defendant to the premises. It found that defendant was close enough to 361 "to be connected to this particular location." The court concluded that the detention by Agent Day was clearly legal, since defendant was walking toward him. Considering Agent Days assignment was to detain anyone attempting to leave, and that he saw people running away from the area, the court determined it was reasonable for Agent Day to detain defendant and perform a patdown search for officer safety reasons.
The court noted that Officer Santanas later detention was more troubling; nonetheless, it concluded the detention was lawful, since the officer was investigating defendant along with other people. The court noted that Officer Santana saw defendant walking away from a group of people who were running from the area, so that gave him reason to independently detain defendant. Regarding Officer Santanas search of defendant, the court noted the facts that defendant was in a small area and that he was very close to 361, which was the subject of the search warrant. The court further noted that people were running away when the police approached and that defendant was leaving with them. In other words, defendant was leaving from the scene where the police were going to do a major narcotics search. The court ultimately concluded that under these circumstances, it was reasonable for Officer Santana to search defendant for officer safety reasons. Once the officer searched defendant for weapons, he was not required to ignore the drugs.
C. The Detention and Searches Were Reasonable
"[A]n officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot." (Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 123.) "While `reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence, the Fourth Amendment requires at least a minimal level of objective justification for making the stop. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) When standing alone, factors such as the time and location of an encounter are not enough to establish reasonable suspicion but may be sufficient when combined with other information available to the officer at the time of the detention. (Id. at p. 124 ["officers are not required to ignore the relevant characteristics of a location in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation"].) In sum, "the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture—must be taken into account." (United States v. Cortez (1981) 449 U.S. 411, 417.)
"To test the detention against `the ultimate standard of reasonableness embodied in the Fourth Amendment [citation], we balance the extent of the intrusion against the government interests justifying it, looking in the final and dispositive portion of the analysis to the individualized and objective facts that made those interests applicable in the circumstances of the particular detention. [Citation.]" (Glaser, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 365.)
1. The Detention and Initial Patdown Search
Agent Day was not a police officer, but rather a parole agent. The record does not mention his experience in executing search warrants, but we assume he simply followed the instructions of the police, in assisting with the execution of this particular warrant. The Winchester apartment complex had a high crime rate. Agent Day was told there would be individuals in the south alley near the Winchester apartments who were involved in illegal drug activity. He was told by Detective Stella that people in the area were known to hide guns in carports, in holes in the walls, and in the ventilation systems. Agent Days understanding was that he was assigned to detain anyone who was seen coming from the targeted area while the search warrant was being executed. When he arrived at the alley, he observed some people begin to run away, while others began to walk away, from the area that was the focus of the search warrant. Agent Day saw defendant coming from the area of 361 and walking quickly in his direction. The court found that defendant was close enough to 361 "to be connected to this particular location." Agent Day detained defendant at gunpoint and told him to get down on the ground and lie in a prone position. Agent Day then placed him in handcuffs and patted him down for weapons. Given that defendant was coming from the area that was the subject of the search warrant and was walking toward Agent Day, it was entirely reasonable for Agent Day to detain defendant. Moreover, Agent Day properly searched defendant for weapons, for officer safety reasons. "The police interest in protecting against violence during the search of a home for narcotics has been widely recognized." (Glaser, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 367.) It is recognized that "`[i]n the narcotics business, "firearms are as much `tools of the trade as are most commonly recognized articles of narcotics paraphernalia." [Citations.]" (Ibid.)
Furthermore, Agent Day detained defendant for only 5-10 minutes. "While the length of the detention is only one circumstance, here its brevity weighs heavily in favor of a finding of reasonableness. [Citation.]" (Glaser, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 367.)
Viewing the totality of information available to Agent Day, we conclude the circumstances were sufficient to establish a reasonable, articulable suspicion that justified a detention of defendant.
Defendant argues that he was not named in the warrant and was not attempting to enter or leave the area described in the warrant. He further asserts that he had no connection to the premises described in the warrant beyond his mere presence near those premises. Moreover, he claims that even if his mere proximity to the search area was sufficient to detain him, he still could not be searched. We disagree. The warrant was for 361 but also permitted the search of "any and all storage sheds and outbuildings on the property with the common address of "361 [W]est Winchester, #1, Rialto, Ca." Defendant was seen leaving the alley of 361 West Winchester, along with other people who began to run once the police arrived. Furthermore, defendant was located in an area known for drug sales and known to contain hidden weapons, and he was walking toward Agent Day. Thus, the agent properly searched him for weapons.
2. Agent Day Properly Kept Defendant Detained
Defendant next contends that since the first patdown search by Agent Day revealed nothing suspicious, defendant should have been released at that point. However, Agent Day testified that he was only instructed to detain individuals coming from the targeted search area. Accordingly, Agent Day detained defendant and waited for an officer to come and get defendant from his location for further investigation. Agent Day did not question defendant, since his assignment was only to detain people. Officer Santana then retrieved defendant and the other people who had been detained and brought them into the carport for questioning. Thus, even though the initial patdown did not reveal anything suspicious, defendant still needed to be detained for questioning.
3. The Second Patdown Search Was Justified
The second patdown search by Officer Santana was justified for the same reasons that justified the initial patdown search. Officer Santana testified that he was initially parked in an unmarked police car and could see numerous people standing in the alleyway. When the parole agents and other police officers arrived, Officer Santana saw several people start leaving the area. He got out of his unmarked unit and started running toward the wall in case anyone jumped over it. He lost sight of people during that time. When Officer Santana first entered the alley, there were several people who had been detained. Defendant was already handcuffed and sitting down. Officer Santana asked if any of the people detained had been searched, and the other officers told him that they had not. He specifically testified that he was not aware whether Agent Day had already patted down defendant. Officer Santana further testified that his role was to pat down suspects for officer safety reasons. Since he was not aware whether defendant had been searched yet, he properly proceeded to search defendant. The second patdown search revealed the drugs on defendants person, which led to his lawful arrest.
C. Conclusion
Although defendant cites to different cases in support of his position, we find that "[t]he `endless variations in the facts and circumstances of detention cases [citation] make a complete comparison of cases difficult and perhaps less useful than in some other areas of the law." (Glaser, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 371, fn 4.) Ultimately, we conclude that the detention and searches here were justified by the particular circumstances under which they occurred. As such, defendant was lawfully arrested. Thus, contrary to defendants claim, his confession that the rock cocaine and marijuana found at 351 belonged to him was not the product of an unlawful arrest. The court properly denied the motion to suppress.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
RAMIREZ, P.J.
GAUT, J.