P. v. Cha
Filed 4/7/06 P. v. Cha CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HEU CHA, Defendant and Appellant. | C049441
(Super. Ct. No. 03F02009)
|
Defendant Heu Cha pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine for personal use. He appeals, contending the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress because police officers conducted an unreasonable weapons frisk. We agree and shall reverse the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 7, 2003, at around 8:00 p.m., Sacramento Police Officers James Brown and Winston Gin responded to a 911 call that reported unsupervised children at a residence. While Officer Brown spoke to another person in the driveway, defendant approached on a bicycle. Defendant's bicycle did not have a light while he rode it at night, in violation of the Vehicle Code. He stopped his bicycle, stepped off it, and approached Officer Brown.
Officer Brown did not see defendant do anything to make Brown believe he needed to frisk defendant. According to Officer Brown, â€
