People v. Bogan CA1/4

Filed 1/13/16 P. v. Bogan CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A144415 v. LOGAN PATRICK BOGAN, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. 1411420) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Logan Patrick Bogan appeals from a judgment entered upon his plea of no contest to misdemeanor possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code § 11377, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor possession of more than 28.5 grams of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code § 11357, subd. (c)). He contends the trial court erred in denying his pretrial motion to suppress methamphetamine seized following a patdown search and his subsequent arrest. We affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On the morning of October 31, 2013, Officer Justin Luo was on motorcycle traffic patrol in Brentwood. As he sat near the intersection of Walnut Boulevard and Carnegie, he saw a car, driven by defendant, traveling southbound at a high rate of speed. Luo used handheld radar and determined the car was traveling approximately 57 miles per hour. The posted speed limit was 40 miles per hour. Luo initiated a traffic stop. Defendant told Luo he was on his way to work and that his license was suspended. After confirming the license suspension over radio, Luo

1

issued defendant a citation and called for a tow truck. Luo also requested a cover officer who was not on motorcycle. As Luo and defendant waited for the tow truck and the cover officer, Luo asked defendant whether he “had any kind of weapons” or “anything on [his person] that may be harmful, dangerous, [or] stick me, poke me, harm me.” Defendant told Luo he might have a “small work knife.” Luo conducted a patdown search. As Luo conducted the search, he felt a triangular object in defendant’s left pocket. Luo removed items from the pocket as he tried to reach the triangular object and discovered a small bag of methamphetamine. Luo placed defendant under arrest. Defendant then told Luo he also had a jar of marijuana in his car. As defendant was being processed into the jail, Luo also found a second bag of methamphetamine on defendant. At the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, Luo testified that he asked defendant whether he had any weapons on his person “as a matter of officer safety” because he was planning on leaving defendant alone with the cover officer, whom he believed would offer defendant a ride. He conducted the patdown search after defendant told him he might have a work knife. Luo testified he became “concerned” that the triangular object he felt in defendant’s left pocket might be defendant’s knife because in his experience, “a person can consider a knife to be anything sharp.” For example, Luo had “seen throwing stars that are in the shapes of diamonds [and] triangles . . . .” On cross-examination, Luo testified that he removed the triangular object and the bag of methamphetamine, but did not recall what the triangular object had been. He also testified that defendant was cooperative and had not made furtive gestures, and that prior to finding the first bag of methamphetamine, Luo was not planning to arrest defendant. II. DISCUSSION Defendant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because (1) Luo had no justification to submit defendant to a patdown search, (2) Luo exceeded 2