In Re Jg

California Court of Appeal Oct 6, 2010 No. G042533Published

Before: Bedsworth

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the police had probable cause to arrest the appellant for possession of a deadly weapon with intent to assault based on the totality of the circumstances, including the appellant's known gang affiliation and his observed conduct.

Issues

Whether the appellant was lawfully arrested under the Fourth Amendment.
Whether the arresting officers possessed sufficient probable cause to believe the appellant committed a crime at the time of the arrest.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold not that J.G. in fact intended to assault another human being, but that it was reasonable for the police to so suspect.”

“Under the circumstances of this case, our judgment is that the officers acted reasonably and the arrest was supported by probable cause.”

188 Cal.App.4th 1501 (2010) In re J.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

J.G., Defendant and Appellant.

No. G042533. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.

October 6, 2010. [1503] Christopher Nalls, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, James D. Dutton, Melissa Mandel and Marissa Bejarano, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

[1504] OPINION

BEDSWORTH, Acting P. J.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), appellant pleaded guilty to possessing a deadly weapon with the intent to assault (Pen. Code, § 12024). He contends the motion was improperly denied because he was arrested without probable cause, but we disagree. "When, as here, the facts known to an officer are sufficient to constitute probable cause to arrest, the possibility of an innocent explanation does not vitiate probable cause and does not render an arrest unlawful. [Citation.]" (Johnson v. Lewis (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 443, 453 [15 Cal.Rptr.3d 507].)

FACTS

About 4:00 p.m. on June 25, 2009, Anaheim Police Department Investigator Gustavo Maya and his partner Investigator Brown (no first name given in the record) were at 316 East Wilhelmina Street in Anaheim. They were investigating an earlier gang-related crime and, based on their police training, knew that area of the city to be turf claimed by a gang known as Anaheim Travelers City (ATC).

While standing in front of the residence, Maya saw four males running from Olive Street onto Wilhelmina toward Philadelphia Street. As soon as they turned the corner onto Wilhelmina, Maya heard someone shout "He's over there!" Maya recognized appellant as one of the four individuals. The two had previously spoken on multiple occasions at Anaheim High School, where appellant had told Maya that he was a member of ATC. The males ran past Maya and Brown on Wilhelmina, but the investigators were not wearing uniforms and the group did not appear to see them. Maya saw that some of the males were carrying objects as they ran. Appellant was holding a red brick and another individual was holding the plastic top of a lamp.

In Re Jg

AI Brief

FACTS

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

NOTES

AI Brief