People v. Williams CA2/6

Filed 11/24/25 P. v. Williams CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B340087 (Super. Ct. No. 24CJCF01313) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

ANTHONY DAVIS WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Anthony Davis Williams appeals from the judgment after he pleaded no contest to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. (Pen. Code § 29800, subd. (a)(1).)1 He contends the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress the evidence pursuant to section 1538.5 because the officer who conducted a “pat-down” search lacked reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous. We affirm.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 1

unless otherwise indicated.

Facts and Procedural Background2 In February 2024, Los Angeles Police Department Officers Felipe Mata and Julia Varela were working in the Vice Unit. They were responsible for monitoring the Figueroa corridor, an area notorious for pimping, prostitution, and human trafficking. At approximately 12:25 a.m., Officer Mata was driving down Figueroa Street in an undercover vehicle when he observed a series of vehicles parked in the middle of a two-way street, blocking traffic in violation of Vehicle Code section 22500. The area was “congested” with numerous women “dressed in provocative clothing.” Officer Mata believed the women to be commercial sex workers. Officer Mata saw appellant exit his vehicle from the driver’s side. He was the sole occupant. Appellant, along with several other men, “aggressively” approached the women, “circling” them. Officer Mata believed the men were trying to commit a robbery or pander the women. Based on his observations and based on the vehicle code violation, he called for marked patrol vehicles to initiate a stop.3 Officer Varela, who was in uniform and driving a marked patrol vehicle, responded to the call. Upon arrival, she observed a group of men shouting at the women, acting aggressively, and trying to get their attention. Appellant was standing outside his vehicle and appeared to be reaching for one of the women’s arms,