In re Matthias A.
Filed 9/15/06 In re Matthias A. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| In re MATTHIAS A., a Person Coming Under The Juvenile Law. |
|
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATTHIAS A., Defendant and Appellant. |
F049139
(Super. Ct. No. BJL015790)
O P I N I O N |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Nancy C. Staggs, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
John R. Hargreaves, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Connie A. Proctor, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
The court adjudged appellant, Matthias A, a ward of the court after Matthias admitted allegations charging him with possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364) and tampering with a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10852).[1] On July 15, 2005, the court ordered Matthias to serve 30 days on house arrest and attend substance abuse counseling. On appeal, Matthias contends the court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. We will reverse.
FACTS
On April 4, 2004, Matthias and another juvenile male were arrested after a woman reported seeing two males vandalizing cars in a parking lot.
On December 8, 2004, Matthias filed a motion to suppress.
On May 24, 2005, at a hearing on this motion Stephanie Walsh testified that on April 4, 2004, at approximately 12:23 a.m. she called the Irvine Police Department to report seeing two males in a parking lot at 430 San Luis who appeared to be taking the emblems off cars.
Irvine Police Officer Edward Kim testified that he arrived at the parking lot shortly after receiving a dispatch that a witness had reported two individuals using some type of pipe tool or knife to tamper with vehicles and possibly attempting to burglarize them. There, he saw Matthias and another juvenile male seated on the curb with Officer Park standing about five feet in front, facing them. At that point, according to Kim, Matthias and the second juvenile were not free to leave. As Kim approached the juveniles to interview them, Officer Park stood to one side to provide security for him. Kim approached the second juvenile and patted him down for officer safety reasons because the witness had reported the suspects might have a knife. Kim felt a hard object that was consistent with a knife or sharp object. He reached in the second juvenile's pocket and pulled out some vehicle emblems. Officer Kim then asked Matthias if he could search him and Matthias consented. The search uncovered a glass pipe in Matthias's right pants' pocket. Officer Kim did not have a warrant to arrest or search Matthias.
After the prosecution rested, defense counsel argued, in pertinent part, that Officer Park detained the juveniles and that the detention was unlawful because the People had not shown any lawful justification for it. The prosecutor responded that the evidence did not show a detention by Officer Park and, in any event, a detention would have been justified. During discussions, the court noted there was no evidence that Officer Park had detained the two juveniles before Officer Kim arrived.
The court then allowed the defense to recall Officer Kim who testified that when he arrived on the scene, Officer Park was standing five feet in front of Mathias. He also testified that, based on his training and experience, the location of Officer Park and the two juveniles indicated to him that Officer Park was detaining them while he conducted a criminal investigation. Officer Kim further testified the suspects were described by dispatch as two males, one possibly Hispanic wearing a white T-shirt and shorts and the second male as possibly White and wearing long pants. Matthias, who is Hispanic, and the second juvenile appeared to match the description although Mathias was not wearing shorts.[2]
After hearing further argument, the court denied the suppression motion.
DISCUSSION
Matthias contends the evidence showed that he was detained by Officer Park and that the detention was unlawful because the prosecution failed to present any evidence justifying it. Respondent contends the evidence fails to show that Matthias was detained by Officer Park and alternatively, that Park had reasonable suspicion to detain him. We will find Officer Park detained Matthias and the second juvenile and that, in any event, Matthias made a prima facie case that he was unlawfully seized which the People failed to rebut.
â€
