P. v. Ruhman
Filed 8/30/06 P. v. Ruhman CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 THREE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES YSIDRO RUHMAN, Defendant and Appellant. | G035373 (Super. Ct. No. 04HF2025) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Susanne S. Shaw, Judge. Reversed.
Cynthia M. Sorman, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Robert M. Foster and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
James Ysidro Ruhman pleaded guilty to various criminal offenses following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. He complains the investigating officer lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him and therefore the trial court should have suppressed the evidence seized during a subsequent search of his person. We agree defendant was illegally detained and the evidence should have been suppressed as a direct product of the detention. Accordingly, we reverse.
I
Facts and Procedural History
Shortly after 9:00 p.m., on an intermittently rainy December 28, 2004, Officer Wessel approached a residential area near the intersection of West Wilson and Federal Avenue in response to a radio dispatch that a â€
