Fear Not Law Articles: P. v. Smith

P. v. Smith

Filed 9/6/06 P. v. Smith CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

JOHNNIE OTIS SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

B185063

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. TA078693)

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Arthur M. Lew, Judge. Affirmed.

Phillip I. Bronson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Marc E. Turchin and Susan D. Martynec, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * * * * * *

Appellant Johnnie Otis Smith was convicted of one count of first degree burglary. He contends that his detention violated the Fourth Amendment because it was based solely on an uncorroborated tip from an anonymous informant. He further argues that the victim's identification of him and his confession should have been suppressed as they are the fruits of the illegal detention. We do not agree with appellant's characterization of the underlying facts of the detention. We find that the detention was legal, as the police were acting on information from the victim of a crime that had just occurred, when they spoke to the informant on the street. We therefore affirm.

FACTS

Appellant does not attack the sufficiency of the evidence at trial. We therefore focus on the evidence at the hearing on his motion to suppress evidence, pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5.

It was stipulated that the police did not have an arrest warrant or a search warrant.

At the suppression hearing, Deputy Sheriff Ramon Marquez testified for the People, and Lakeisha Wilson testified for appellant.

Marquez testified that at 8:30 a.m. on April 11, 2005, he was assigned to the Compton station, and was working with his partner in a marked patrol car. A radio broadcast reported a burglary at the home of Betty Lewis. The officers arrived there within two minutes, and spoke to Mrs. Lewis. She told them she heard a noise, walked into her living room, and saw a person crawling out of the front window of her house. The person was a thin Black male, five feet 11 inches or six feet tall, with an Afro hairstyle. He wore a black hooded sweat shirt and blue jeans.

Marquez and his partner talked to Mrs. Lewis for two or three minutes.^[1] They went outside, put out a broadcast to other deputies, and began canvassing the neighborhood. They initiated a conversation with a man who was walking on the street (the informant). He refused to give his name or address, which was not unusual. They asked him if he had heard or seen a person that matched the physical and clothing description from Mrs. Lewis. He gave a physical description and the address of a possible suspect named â€

Description	Appellant was convicted of one count of first degree burglary. He contends that his detention violated the Fourth Amendment because it was based solely on an uncorroborated tip from an anonymous informant. Appellant further argues that the victim's identification of him and his confession should have been suppressed as they are the fruits of the illegal detention. Court do not agree with appellant's characterization of the underlying facts of the detention. Court find that the detention was legal, as the police were acting on information from the victim of a crime that had just occurred, when they spoke to the informant on the street. Court therefore affirm.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.