Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County Super. Ct. Nos. SCD198289, SCD 195273, SCD 195533., Frank A. Brown, Judge.
McCONNELL, P. J.
Willie Edward Bennett pleaded guilty in three separate court cases to three counts of possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5), sale or transportation of cocaine not for personal use (id., § 11352, subd. (a), Pen. Code, § 1210, subd. (a)), possession of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)), resisting an officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)) and possession of a firearm by a felon (id., § 12021, subd. (a)(1)). He admitted he was on bail when he committed the offenses (id., § 12022.1, subd. (b)), possessed a firearm during the commission of an offense (id., § 12022, subd. (c)), had a prior narcotics conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.2) and had two prior strike convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). He was sentenced to a total prison term of 12 years.
Since Bennett pleaded guilty, the facts are taken from the probation reports.
San Diego Superior Court Case No. SCD 195533
On December 11, 2005, the police stopped Bennett for a seatbelt violation. The police found several pieces of cocaine on the driver's seat, over $1,000 mainly in one dollar bills in Bennett's pocket, and 2.64 grams of cocaine in his shoe.
San Diego Superior Court Case No. SCD 195273
Some of the facts for this case are taken from the suppression motion.
On November 24, 2005, the police received an anonymous tip that Bennett was armed and dealing drugs near 11th and G Streets in the east village area of downtown San Diego. The individual provided the police with a physical description of Bennett and of his vehicle, including its license plate. Department of Motor Vehicle records indicated the car, a gold, four-door Nissan Maxima, was registered to Bennett.
Officer Matthew Botkin spoke to two drug users who told him they had recently purchased drugs from a person named "Blue" in the east village area. Both gave a physical description of the seller, which matched Bennett, and one stated that the seller drove a gold, four-door car.
On November 29, Officer Botkin saw Bennett in his car parked westbound on a street in the east village area. There was another person in the car. The officer drove by and then turned around to watch Bennett. He saw the passenger walking away from the car in an eastbound direction while Bennett had started driving away. The officer suspected Bennett had just completed a drug deal with the passenger, although it was also possible that Bennett was just dropping off the passenger.
The officer stopped Bennett's car and asked to see Bennett's license and registration. Bennett's hands were shaking and he seemed nervous as he handed them to the officer. The officer asked Bennett to step out of the car because he wanted to evaluate him to see if he was under the influence and to conduct a pat down search for weapons since drug dealers are often armed, Bennett had been convicted of violent crimes, and he had information Bennett was armed.
When the officer attempted to conduct a pat down search, Bennett resisted. After Bennett was subdued, the police found a small piece of rock cocaine in plain view inside the car and another small piece of rock cocaine where he had been standing outside the car. He had several more pieces of rock cocaine on his person and a large amount of currency in his wallet. The police recovered about 2.53 grams of rock cocaine from the vehicle.
San Diego Superior Court Case No. SCD 198289
On April 13, 2006, the police stopped Bennett because his vehicle had an inoperable brake light. He was arrested for driving with a suspended license. The police found .05 grams of rock cocaine in the vehicle. Bennett admitted to the police that he was then out on bail on another drug offense.
On April 17, 2006, the police detained Bennett because it appeared he was dealing drugs. When the police attempted to handcuff him, he fled. He dropped a baggie containing 4.46 grams of cocaine. The police found .28 grams of cocaine in his pocket and a loaded gun in the truck.
Guilty Plea
On September 13, 2006, Bennett pleaded guilty to the offenses charged in the three superior court cases. He waived his right to appeal the denial of a suppression motion, issues related to his prior convictions and any stipulated sentence.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief setting forth evidence in the superior court. Counsel presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We granted permission to Bennett to file a brief on his own behalf. He responded.
Bennett argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. Bennett, however, specifically waived his right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion when he pleaded guilty. (People v. Kelly (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 533.) Moreover, even if Bennett did not waive the issue, he would not prevail.
Suppression Motion
Bennett contends he was unlawfully detained by Officer Botkin and therefore, the evidence should have been suppressed in San Diego Superior Court Case No. SCD 195273.
When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we review the record in the light most favorable to the People, uphold all factual findings by the court that are supported by substantial evidence and then independently apply the applicable federal constitutional standard to those facts. (People v. Valenzuela (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1202, 1206-1207.) " '[T]he power to judge the credibility of the witnesses, resolve any conflicts in the testimony, weigh the evidence and draw factual inferences, is vested in the trial court. On appeal all presumptions favor the exercise of that power. . . .' " (In re Arturo D. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 60, 77.)
"To justify an investigative stop or detention, the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts which, viewed objectively, would cause a reasonable officer to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person the officer intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity." (People v. Conway (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)
"Reasonable suspicion cannot be reduced to a neat set of legal rules, but must be determined by looking to 'the totality of the circumstances — the whole picture.' " (U.S. v. Jordan (5th Cir. 2000) 232 F.3d 447, 449, quoting United States v. Sokolow (1989) 490 U.S. 1, 7-8.) Under this standard, a detention requires only a "minimal level of objective justification" (I.N.S. v. Delgado (1984) 466 U.S. 210, 217), and an officer may initiate one "based not on certainty but on the need to 'check out' a reasonable suspicion." (U.S. v. Clark (D.C. Cir. 1994) 24 F.3d 299, 303.) An uncorroborated anonymous tip is not sufficient to justify a detention. (Florida v. J.L. (2000) 529 U.S. 266, 270.) There must be some corroboration. (People v. Ramirez (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1608, 1616-1617.)
When an officer is properly detaining persons in a car, he may order them out of the vehicle. (Maryland v. Wilson (1997) 519 U.S. 408, 410; Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106, 109; People v. Vibanco (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1, 9-10.)
Here, the officer had information from three separate sources that Bennett was dealing drugs from his car in the east village area of downtown San Diego. The sources provided descriptions of Bennett and two sources described his vehicle, with one source providing its license plate. One of the sources also indicated that Bennett usually carried a firearm in the trunk of his car. When the officer first saw Bennett's car, he saw activity that could have been consistent with drug dealing. Bennett and his car matched the descriptions given by the sources. These circumstances were sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion that Bennett was engaged in drug dealing and justified the officer's decision to detain Bennett. The court properly denied Bennett's motion to suppress evidence.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McINTYRE, J., IRION, J.