California Supreme And Appellate Court
Case Summaries
Juvenile Law

JUVENILE LAW
Juvenile Law Case Summaries

■ People v. Richard G., No. B209512

There is little room for error when a police officer responds to a disturbance call involving a firearm in a documented criminal street gang area.  (See People ex e.l Totten v. Colonia Chiques (2009) 156 Cal.App.4th 31.)  As this case shows, even when a police officer is careful, he is still subject to attack.  The judiciary should not "lightly second guess" an officer's decision to conduct a "stop and frisk" in this situation.  (People v. Dickey (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 952, 957, citing, inter alia, Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1 [27 L.Ed.2d 889].)  More than 40 years ago, Presiding Justice Pierce said that police officers were entitled to protect themselves during a detention:  "This is a rule of necessity to which a right even as basic as that of privacy must bow.  To rule otherwise would be inhumanely to add another hazard to an already very dangerous occupation.  Our zeal to fend off encroachments upon the right of privacy must be tempered by remembrance that ours is a government of laws to preserve which we require law enforcement officers - live ones.  Without becoming a police state, we may still protect the policeman's status."  (People v. Koelzer (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 20, 27.) 

                        Richard G. appeals from the order of the juvenile court denying his motion to suppress and accepting appellant's admission that he disturbed the peace by using offensive language.  (Pen. Code, § 415, subd. (3).)  Appellant contends the juvenile court erred when it denied his motion to suppress because (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the detention and cursory search for weapons, and (2) the prosecution did not establish the source of the information on which the arresting officer relied to detain appellant.  These contentions are without merit and, in any event, the granting of a suppression motion would not preclude the People from proving its case.   We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

                        Oxnard Police Officers Mora and Alva were on routine patrol in the Colonia area of Oxnard at approximately midnight on June 21, 2007.  They received a radio dispatch that two males were causing a disturbance outside a residence at 133 North Juanita Street and that one of them was possibly in possession of a handgun.  The police dispatcher further stated that one male was wearing a black t-shirt while the other was wearing a blue Pendleton-type jacket.  They were walking toward Colonia Park, which is located across the street from the North Juanita Street residence.  Earlier that week, Officer Mora had responded to another call of a daytime shooting at the same residence.  The police seized two guns on that occasion. 

                        The officers drove around the park.  Within a few minutes, they saw two males and two females walking near the park.  The males were wearing clothng that identically matched the description given in the radio dispatch.  They radioed for "backup" and Officer Valesquez responded to their call. 

                        Officers Mora and Alva got out of their patrol car and made contact with the group.  They ordered the males to stop but they refused to do so.  Because they believed one of the males might be in possession of a gun, the officers repeated their commands and told the males to sit on the ground.  Appellant repeatedly refused to obey any police command.  He told Officer Mora, "I'm going to fuck you up . . . ."  He made repeated statements to the same effect.  When Mora grabbed appellant to place in him a control hold, appellant resisted and punched Mora.  Appellant was eventually handcuffed with help from other officers, but not before he caused visible injuries to Officer Mora. 

                                Appellant filed a written motion to suppress evidence of his statements and conduct during the detention on the theory that Officer Mora lacked reasonable suspicion to detain him.  He also lodged a "Harvey-Madden" objection, contending the prosecution could not establish that his detention was lawful unless it identified the source of the original report or called the police dispatcher to testify that it had been received.  (People v. Harvey (1958) 156 Cal.App.2d 516, People v. Madden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1017.)    The People attempted to meet this objection with an unsworn and unauthenticated police dispatcher's printout showing the date and time of the telephone call.  The trial court sustained the hearsay objection to that document but permitted the officers to describe the radio dispatch they heard and responded to. 

                        After the trial  court denied the motion to suppress, appellant admitted the misdemeanor allegation that he disturbed the peace by using offensive language toward Officer Mora.  Allegations that he resisted, obstructed or delayed a peace officer in violation of section 148, subdivision (a)(1), and that he resisted an executive officer in violation of section 69 were dismissed.   

■HELD:

Juvenile court order denying defendant's motion to suppress is affirmed where: 1) the court properly found that a police officer did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights as the officer had a reasonable suspicion that defendant violated the law; 2) defendant's detention was supported by evidence that created a reasonable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was not necessary to require strict compliance with the Harvey-Madden rule; and 3) the exclusionary rule does not result in immunity from prosecution where the charged offense can be proven with evidence from a source independent of any Fourth Amendment violation.
In re Richard G.-B209512-5/12/09 CA2/6
In re Richard G.-B209512-5/12/09 CA2/6-PDF

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory