Filed 2/27/18 P. v. Secrest CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.



IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Placer)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM JAMES SECREST, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.


C085444

(Super. Ct. No. 62148475)


Defendant William James Secrest, Jr., pleaded no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted a prior strike (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Per the parties’ agreement, the trial court imposed an aggregate term of eight years in state prison.
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We conclude the totality of the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that defendant was armed, and the brief, limited patdown search was justified. We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Facts of the Offense
On October 20, 2016, at 1:00 p.m., Detective Ken Addison was driving in an unmarked patrol car with his partner, FBI Special Agent John Sommercamp. Addison saw defendant, who was wearing a Vagos motorcycle gang vest, riding a motorcycle. Defendant pulled up to a stop sign and turned right without signaling, in violation of Vehicle Code section 22107. Addison initiated a traffic stop, and defendant pulled over. Addison approached and saw defendant had a Vagos gang sticker on his helmet. Given Addison’s knowledge and experience with the Vagos gang, he was concerned defendant was carrying a weapon.
Addison asked defendant to step off his bike. Addison told defendant he was not under arrest, but, for safety, Addison would perform a patdown search for weapons. Addison loosely secured defendant’s hands on top of his head and patted him down over his clothes, without going inside any pockets. Addison started at defendant’s waistband and felt a pocket knife clipped to his pants. Addison pulled out the knife and secured it, and proceeded with the patdown. When Addison reached defendant’s chest, he felt an object that he immediately recognized as a firearm. Defendant did not respond when Addison asked what the object was. Addison reached inside defendant’s vest and pulled out a fully loaded Ruger .380-caliber semiautomatic handgun. Addison subsequently confirmed the gun was stolen.
Preliminary Hearing
Detective Addison testified during the preliminary hearing that he had been a detective for 15 years, and currently worked in the special operations unit. He had been involved with over 100 investigations involving the Vagos gang, which has four chapters in the greater Sacramento area with over 50 members. In Addison’s experience, the primary activity of the Vagos gang is committing crimes, including selling methamphetamine, stealing vehicles, possessing and selling firearms, and committing assaults and murders. Addison was familiar with two recent area shootings involving supporters of the Vagos gang, including a homicide in Truckee and a shooting in Yuba City.
Addison had received training in how to conduct traffic stops involving Vagos gang members who are “wearing their colors.” Addison had previously arrested two Vagos members wearing Vagos emblems, and both were carrying weapons at the time. Addison testified that, in his 20 years of experience as a gang investigator, “more times than not” members of outlaw motorcycle gangs, including the Vagos gang, are armed. Moreover, in his experience, “[a]ll” Vagos gang members carry weapons. Addison testified it was his common practice to conduct a patdown when performing a traffic stop on a Vagos gang member.
During the preliminary hearing, defendant made a motion to suppress the fruits of the search under section 1538.5. Defendant argued the stop and the patdown search were illegal. Based on Addison’s testimony during the preliminary hearing, the magistrate denied the motion to suppress and held defendant to answer to the charges. The magistrate reasoned the stop was lawful based on Detective Addison seeing defendant turn without signaling. The magistrate further found Addison had a reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed, based on Addison’s “expertise in the motorcycle gangs, his knowledge of the Vagos gang, the history of the Vagos gang using weapons, and a fairly recent shooting of two Vagos associates.”
Motion to Dismiss the Information
Defense counsel moved to dismiss the information (§ 995), based on the denial of the motion to suppress. Defendant again argued Detective Addison did not have a proper legal basis to initiate a traffic stop on defendant, or to perform the subsequent search of defendant. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, noting defendant had properly renewed his motion to suppress under People v. Lilienthal (1978) 22 Cal.3d 891. The trial court found the traffic stop was lawful, based on defendant failing to signal before turning. The trial court also found the search lawful, based on Addison’s testimony he saw Vagos gang symbols on defendant’s vest and helmet and was aware of the Vagos gang’s criminal activity, including recent local shootings involving Vagos supporters. In addition, Addison was aware members of outlaw motorcycle gangs, including members of the Vagos gang, are often armed. As such, reasoned the trial court, Addison reasonably believed a patdown search was necessary to assure his safety.
Defendant filed a timely appeal.
DISCUSSION
Although defendant concedes Detective Addison performed a lawful traffic stop, he contends Addison did not have a reasonable suspicion that he was armed and therefore violated his Fourth Amendment rights by performing a patdown search.
“In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, we defer to that court’s factual findings, express or implied, if they are supported by substantial evidence. [Citation.] We exercise our independent judgment in determining whether, on the facts presented, the search or seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” (People v. Lenart (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1107, 1119.) “Whether a search is reasonable must be determined based upon the circumstances known to the officer when the search was conducted.” (In re H.M. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 136, 144.)
“In the context of an ordinary traffic stop, an officer may not pat down a driver and passengers absent a reasonable suspicion they may be armed and dangerous.” (People v. Collier (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1374, 1377; see also Knowles v. Iowa (1998) 525 U.S. 113, 117-118 [142 L.Ed.2d 492].) An officer need not be “absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the crux of the issue is whether a reasonably prudent person in the totality of the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his or her safety was in danger.” (People v. Avila (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1074.)
Here, there were specific and articulable facts to support Detective Addison’s decision to conduct a patdown search for officer safety. Defendant was wearing Vagos gang emblems, indicating his membership in a group Addison had investigated for 15 years and knew to be primarily involved in criminal activities. In Addison’s experience, members of the Vagos gang were usually armed. In addition, Addison was aware there had been two recent area shootings involving Vagos gang supporters. As courts have explained, it is “common knowledge that members of criminal street gangs often carry guns and other weapons,” and often resort to “ ‘physical violence and gunfire. No one immersed in the gang culture is unaware of these realities, and we see no reason the courts should turn a blind eye to them.’ ” (In re H.M., supra, 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 146.) Moreover, “[t]he judiciary should not lightly second-guess a police officer’s decision to perform a patdown search for officer safety. The lives and safety of police officers weigh heavily in the balance of competing Fourth Amendment considerations.” (People v. Dickey (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 952, 957.)
Based on the record, the totality of the circumstances gave rise to a reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that defendant was armed, and Addison was justified in conducting the brief, limited patdown search. We conclude the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



/s/
HOCH, J.



We concur:



/s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.



/s/
RENNER, J.