In re A.A. CA6

Filed 5/17/22 In re A.A. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re A.A., a Person Coming Under the H048718 Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. JV42051)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

The minor in this juvenile delinquency proceeding appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during a traffic stop. We conclude the officers did not unduly prolong the stop to obtain the evidence, nor did they otherwise act unreasonably. We will therefore affirm the order. I. BACKGROUND A San Jose police officer stopped a car driven by 17-year-old A.A. at 3:25 a.m. because it was traveling over the speed limit, ran through a red light, and appeared to lose control as it turned 180 degrees in the middle of the roadway. Before approaching the car, the officer called for backup based on seeing more than one person in the car and being in an area known to the officer to be frequented by gang members. Two other officers arrived four minutes later.

The officer who made the initial stop saw the driver (A.A.) moving in and out of view in the car’s side mirror and was concerned he might be retrieving or hiding a weapon. He ordered A.A. out of the car and handcuffed him, and another officer took A.A. behind one of the patrol cars. The two passengers in the car were also ordered out and handcuffed. As one passenger was being handcuffed, an officer asked if he was on probation and he replied that he was. A records check determined the probation terms included a search condition. An officer then asked A.A. (who had by that time been placed in the back seat of a patrol car) for permission to search the vehicle, which A.A. gave by saying, “Yeah[.] It’s not my car, but [trailing off] … .” The officers searched the car and found a loaded handgun between the front passenger seat and center console. A juvenile wardship petition was filed alleging A.A. violated Penal Code sections 25850, subdivision (a) (carrying a loaded firearm in vehicle) and 29610 (possession of concealed firearm by a minor). A.A. moved to suppress the gun as the product of an unlawful search. The juvenile court denied the motion. A.A. then admitted the allegation that he violated Penal Code section 25850, subdivision (a), and the other count was dismissed. At the disposition hearing, the court dismissed the petition.1 II. DISCUSSION The Fourth Amendment’s proscription on unreasonable searches and seizures requires that an arrest be based on probable cause to believe a crime has been committed (People v. Celis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 667, 673), while a detention may be based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. (Id. at p. 674.) A traffic stop based on a suspicion that the driver has committed a traffic infraction is an example of a brief investigatory detention, permissible to determine whether a crime has been committed.