People v. Bailey CA1/1

Filed 1/13/16 P. v. Bailey CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A140997 v. RAUSHAUN P. BAILEY, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR635260) Defendant and Appellant.

Following the denial of his motion to suppress, defendant and appellant Raushaun Bailey pleaded no contest to commercial burglary (Pen. Code, § 459).1 On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him. We disagree and affirm the judgment of conviction. BACKGROUND Defendant made his motion to suppress following the filing of an information charging him with burglary of a commercial building (§ 459) and obstructing a law enforcement officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). For the motion, defense counsel agreed to a stipulated set of facts based on an offer of proof by the prosecution as to the testimony of Sonoma County Sheriff Deputy Michael Moriarty. The offer of proof provided:

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

“At approximately [¶] . . . [¶] 1:23 in the afternoon, there was a dispatch to Cellular World in Windsor regarding a grab-and-run burglary that had occurred. The description that was given was three Black male adults that had left the scene in a gold Audi. That, in response to this information, Deputy Moriarty set up on Highway 101; that he saw a similar matching car pass his location. He followed the gold Audi, and, once behind the gold Audi, the gold Audi sped off, I believe it was from close to the Cotati Grade down to and into Petaluma; that he followed the vehicle in and out of traffic, and was able to tell that it was occupied by four adults, at which point he eventually lost sight of the vehicle, due to the chase and the speed, close to the area of East Washington Boulevard in Petaluma. “It was during the chase that he was in fact updating dispatch regarding where the vehicle was headed and had requested assistance from surrounding agencies regarding the traffic stop and chase.” The prosecution then called Petaluma Police Officer Matthew Frick. At approximately 1:42 p.m., while he was in uniform and in his patrol car, Officer Frick received a dispatch that Sonoma County Sheriff deputies were pursuing a vehicle, described as a gold Audi sedan occupied by four Black adult males, southbound on Highway 101. Initially he planned to deploy a spike strip at Lakeville and 101, but then heard the vehicle might have taken the Petaluma Boulevard North off ramp. On his way there, as he was crossing over Highway 101 on an overpass, he saw a gold sedan exiting at East Washington at a high rate of speed and radioed dispatch that he saw the suspect vehicle exit the freeway. He then saw the vehicle turn northbound from East Washington onto Ellis Street. Officer Frick saw the vehicle “for a moment” on Ellis, but then lost sight of it. Close to the intersection of Ellis and Madison Streets, a pedestrian on Ellis told him, without explanation, “the vehicle I was looking for had turned into that apartment complex.” He did a U-turn on Ellis, radioed in the information from the witness, requested that a perimeter be set up, and parked at the intersection of Ellis and Martin Circle, a locale he thought was the best for him to immediately set up a perimeter.