People v. Peters CA1/5

Filed 6/14/22 P. v. Peters CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur- poses of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162354 v. CURTIS JAMES PETERS, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. Defendant and Appellant. 20NF008972A)

Appellant Curtis James Peters pled no contest to a charge of second-degree robbery after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence that the victim's recently stolen cell phone was found inside his home. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); 1538.5.) Appellant contends that the phone should have been suppressed because it was discovered by third parties who were acting as agents for the police, and the police did not have valid consent or a warrant to search. We disagree. I. BACKGROUND1 Ervin Lopez was walking from a market towards his home at about noon on July 31, 2020. Appellant came out of a house

The facts are taken primarily from the hearing on 1

appellant's motion to suppress.

1

and asked Lopez for his cell phone and wallet. Lopez refused, and the two men struggled until appellant reached into Lopez's pocket and took his phone. Appellant fled to the same house from which he had emerged, dropping his wallet on the way. Lopez retrieved the wallet and attempted to catch up to appellant but was unable to do so. Lopez stayed in the area for about five hours, unable to call anyone because his cell phone had been taken. Eventually, a passer-by allowed Lopez to use his phone to call the police. Lopez went to a nearby community center where he met San Mateo Police Officer Ramirez, who took a description of the robbery suspect and inspected the wallet that the suspect had dropped. It contained an identification card for Curtis James Peters (appellant) bearing an address on North Claremont Street that was a few houses away from where the robbery was committed. Appellant matched the description of the suspect (age, gender, clothing, race and facial hair), and Officer Ramirez was advised that appellant had been detained near the North Claremont Street address. Officer Ramirez broadcast that Lopez had provided him a wallet with appellant's identification inside, and then drove Lopez to do an in-field show-up of appellant. At the show-up, Lopez said he was 100 percent certain that appellant was the man who had robbed him and taken his phone. Officer Ramirez asked appellant to give him consent to search the address given on his identification card and appellant refused. Meanwhile, Officer Hussein and his field training officer had responded to North Claremont Street and saw appellant