People v. Teran CA6

Filed 1/21/21 P. v. Teran CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H047228 (Monterey County Super. Ct. Plaintiff and Respondent, Nos. 18CR008795/19CR000266)

v.

DANIEL TERAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm following the denial of motions to suppress evidence and dismiss the charges in case number 19CR000266. He argues, and respondent concedes, that the motion to suppress should have been granted because his detention was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. We agree and will therefore reverse the judgment in that case. I. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged in case number 19CR800266 with carrying a concealed firearm (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (a)(2); count 1), carrying a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a); count 2), and misdemeanor resisting or obstructing a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3). The offenses were alleged to have occurred on January 7, 2019. The complaint alleged defendant was not the registered owner of the loaded gun (Pen. Code, § 25400, subd. (c)(6)), and that the offenses were committed while defendant was on bail in case number 18CR008795. (Pen. Code, § 12022.1, subd. (b).)

Defendant moved to suppress evidence flowing from his detention and arrest on January 7. (Pen. Code, § 1538.5, subd. (a)(1)(A).) According to the testimony at the combined suppression/preliminary hearing, officers were dispatched “to a possible domestic in progress, where a female appeared to be chasing a male with a bat. And there was some kind of disturbance going on. And the female was crying.” According to the dispatch, the male was wearing dark clothing. Dispatch did not report that the man had done anything to the woman or had otherwise committed a crime. Nor did dispatch report that the female was injured. Dispatch related that the male and female had left the scene and gone in different directions. The officer who detained defendant testified that he observed defendant walking down a street “[f]airly close” to the area of the reported incident, wearing a black shirt and black pants. No one else was in the area. The officer believed defendant matched the description of the male involved in the disturbance, although “[i]t was unknown at that time” whether he was a victim or a suspect. The “intention is always to contact both halves to a domestic to ascertain what was going on,” so the officer stopped his patrol car, walked toward defendant, and asked to speak with him. Defendant shook his head, gestured dismissively with his hands, said “no,” and continued walking away from the officer. The officer told defendant to stop, that he was investigating a possible domestic issue, and needed to speak with him. Defendant ignored the officer’s commands and continued walking. The officer caught up with defendant, again told him to stop, grabbed him by the arm, and ordered him to put his hands behind his back. Defendant tried to pull away, at which point the officer and his partner “took control of [defendant] and took him down to the ground with an arm for a takedown.” As he was being handcuffed, defendant told the officer that he had a gun in his waistband. The officer removed the gun and disengaged the magazine, which contained several rounds of ammunition. The gun was not registered to defendant, who was placed under arrest.