Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. NCR71350
SCOTLAND, P.J.
Defendant Eurcle Lamon Williams was charged with possessing methamphetamine for sale (count I), transporting methamphetamine (count II), having one prior serious felony conviction and three prior drug-related convictions, and having served ten prison terms. After his motion to suppress evidence was denied, defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to count I and admitted the prior serious felony conviction allegation. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he was sentenced to six years in state prison and was ordered to pay various fines and fees.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We disagree and shall affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
At 9:30 p.m., Officers Dyke and White were on patrol when they saw defendant walking down a dimly lit road in an area that recently had been vandalized. They made a U-turn and pulled over to the side of the road behind defendant. Leaving the headlights on, the officers got out of the patrol car and stood next to it. Defendant testified that Dyke’s hand was “hovering toward[] his gun,” but that neither officer pulled his weapon.
Officer White asked defendant “something to the effect of ‘Could I talk to you? Could you come over here for a minute? Can I talk to you?’” As defendant walked toward the officers, he asked why he was being stopped. White said the officers just wanted to talk to him, then asked for and obtained defendant’s identification.
Officer White ran a warrants check while he and defendant were “chit-chatting.” The check revealed that defendant was on felony parole. White then asked: “You got anything on you? You mind if we look?” Defendant turned around, put his hands “up in the air,” and said, “I’ve got a pipe in my pocket.” White took a pipe out of defendant’s pocket and recognized it as one commonly used for smoking methamphetamine. Thus, defendant was placed in handcuffs. To this point, the encounter had lasted “around three to four minutes.”
Officer White then performed a pat-down search and “another officer,” presumably Officer Dyke who was the only other officer present, asked defendant if he had anything else on him. Defendant responded: “I have syringes in my waistband.” White lifted defendant’s shirt and found a small bag with a zipper containing ten syringes and a digital scale. When asked if there was anything else, defendant replied that he had “shit” in a cigarette box. White looked in the cigarette box and found methamphetamine.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, defendant contends that he was unlawfully seized at the moment the officers asked to talk with him and, thus, the ensuing consensual search was the product of an unlawful detention.
“The standard of appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is well established. We defer to the trial 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. Glaser (1995) 11 Cal.4th 354, 362.)
A detention “does not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions. So long as a reasonable person would feel free ‘to disregard the police and go about his business,’ [citation], the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion [of criminal activity] is required. The encounter will not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny unless it loses its consensual nature. . . . ‘. . . Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a “seizure” has occurred.’” (Florida v. Bostick (1991) 501 U.S. 429, 434 [115 L.Ed.2d 389, 398]; see also Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 784.)
Accordingly, “[l]aw enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen. [Citations.] Even when law enforcement officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may pose questions, [and] ask for identification . . . provided they do not induce cooperation by coercive means. [Citation.] If a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter, then he or she has not been [detained].” (United States v. Drayton (2002) 536 U.S. 194, 200-201 [153 L.Ed.2d 242, 251].)
Officer White simply called out to defendant, who was walking on a public street, and asked to speak with him. Defendant walked over, talked with the officers, and presented his identification, which led to the discovery of his parole status. When the officers asked whether they could look to see if he had “anything on [him],” defendant put his hands up and said he had a pipe in his pocket. The pipe appeared to be drug paraphernalia, and defendant said he had syringes in his waistband and “shit,” i.e., methamphetamine, in a cigarette box. There is no evidence that either officer used physical force or in any way coerced defendant into cooperating during the brief encounter that lasted only several minutes.
Even though the officers had no suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity, the initial contact with defendant and the subsequent questions that led to the consensual discovery of contraband were lawful. Hence, the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE, J., HULL, J.