In re I.W. CA2/6
Filed 7/22/25 In re I.W. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
In re I.W., a Person Coming Under 2d Crim. No. B341282 the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. IJ0265B) (Los Angeles County)
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
I.W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
I.W. appeals an order of the juvenile court declaring him a ward pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and ordering him home on probation. This appeal concerns his claim that the court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of a firearm found during his street encounter with Los Angeles police officers. We reject his argument and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 5, 2024, the prosecutor filed a petition alleging that I.W. concealed an unregistered firearm on his person. (Pen.
Code, § 25400, subd. (a)(2).) I.W. denied the allegation and filed a motion to suppress evidence of the firearm asserting that the search was warrantless and lacked reasonable cause. On September 25, 2024, the juvenile court held a hearing and received the testimony of Los Angeles Police Officer Kevin Santizo as well as the body camera videos of the encounter and arrest. The court then denied the motion. Following the hearing, the court sustained the allegation of the wardship petition, declared the allegation to be a felony and I.W. to be a ward of the court, and ordered I.W. home on probation. This evidence was presented at the hearing: In the late afternoon of July 7, 2024, Gang Enforcement Police Officers Santizo and Farias were patrolling 102nd Street in Los Angeles. They stopped their marked patrol vehicle at 1317 West 102nd Street, a location known for people to congregate, loiter, and drink. In the past, the area had experienced shootings. Four boys stood in that location, including I.W. Santizo spoke with them (“chit-chatting”) while Farias canvassed the area. Farias then spoke with them while Santizo looked into a truck bed in a nearby front yard. Farias asked the group, “Anything on you, bro?” and “Let me see.” The four boys pulled up their shirts and exposed their bellies and waistbands. Farias then asked I.W.: “Anything in your backpack, bro?” I.W. responded, “No.” Farias then asked, “No pistol?” I.W. opened his backpack. During the interaction, the boys were laughing, texting, joking with the officers, and standing wherever they chose. I.W. and the others were free to leave. None of the boys were
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)