P. v. Ripley
Filed 4/13/06 P. v. Ripley CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LARRY DALE RIPLEY, Defendant and Appellant. | E037879 (Super.Ct.No. FVA021934) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Douglas M. Elwell and Roberta McPeters, Judges. Affirmed.
Dacia A. Burz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey J. Koch and Scott C. Taylor, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Larry Dale Ripley (appellant) contends that his drug possession conviction must be reversed because the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5.[1] We disagree and will affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
About 8:45 in the evening, after dark on April 9, 2004, Fontana police lawfully stopped a car in which appellant was riding as a front seat passenger. As Officer Jorge Rodriguez approached the car, he saw appellant look around nervously and then put something in the right front pocket of his pants. Officer Rodriquez could not see what appellant was putting in his pocket. The officer suspected appellant might have hidden a weapon and was concerned for his own safety. The officer had appellant step out of the car and, over his objection, searched him for weapons.
As he was patting appellant down, Officer Rodriguez felt what seemed to be a glass methamphetamine smoking pipe in the pocket where appellant had just put something. In the officer's experience, which included contact with hundreds of methamphetamine pipes, they can be distinguished from marijuana pipes by funnels for introduction of the drug present on the latter, but not on the former. After Officer Rodriquez retrieved the object, which did prove to be a methamphetamine pipe, appellant said, â€
