People v. Price-Stewart CA1/4

Filed 10/8/13 P. v. Price-Stewart CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A136332 v. EMMA PRICE-STEWART, (San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. 12007830) Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION Following the denial of a motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5)1, appellant Emma Price-Stewart entered a guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), and admitted one prior felony conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). On appeal, Price-Stewart’s sole contention is that the seizure of her purse during a police investigation was unconstitutional because there were no particularized facts showing that she was armed or dangerous. As such, Price-Stewart argues the police officer’s observation of the gun after the illegal seizure must be suppressed as tainted evidence. We disagree and affirm.

1 Section 1538.5 allows a defendant to move to suppress evidence obtained in an improper search and seizure. (People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 125.)

1

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDS On the afternoon of March 21, 2012, San Francisco Police Officer Donald Lockett received a call regarding the attempted fraudulent use of a credit card at the Louis Vuitton store in the Westfield San Francisco Centre mall. Officer Lockett testified that upon his arrival, a store employee told him that one male and one female, both of whom were African-American, attempted to purchase over $4,000 worth of merchandise. The store employee told Office Lockett that she suspected that the male was going to use a fraudulent credit card because she recognized him from a bulletin regarding suspected fraud. The store employee then consulted her manager in the back of the store. When the employee returned to the counter, a manager from another Louis Vuitton store arrived, at which time the suspects immediately exited the store. When the suspects left, San Francisco Police Officer Lee Dahlberg received a dispatch call concerning the credit card fraud. Officer Dahlberg was directed to street level outside the mall to await details of the suspects’ location. As Officer Dahlberg was waiting, loss prevention officer Adam Ferla told Officer Dahlberg that the female suspect was heading towards Fifth and Market Streets. Looking in that direction, Officer Dahlberg observed a tall African-American female with red hair wearing a brown jacket. This exactly matched the description of the female suspect given in the dispatch call. Officer Dahlberg and another officer then detained the female suspect, later identified at the preliminary hearing as Emma Price-Stewart, appellant in the instant case. When the officers began questioning Price-Stewart, she was “fidgety” and “flailing” about, moving her arms around “quite a bit” before she calmed down. She was carrying a large purse at the time of the detention. During the officers’ questioning, Price-Stewart’s purse was wide open. Officer Dahlberg testified that large purses can present safety problems because they can be swung against police officers, and that in his experience as a police officer, people have swung items including purses at officers. Therefore, due to Price-Stewart’s fidgety motions and her large purse, Officer Dahlberg explained that he was “always concerned for weapons.” Price-Stewart’s rapid and quick