In re E.A. CA2/6

Filed 11/15/22 In re E.A. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re E.A., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B315127 Under the Juvenile Court (Super. Ct. No. FJ56399) Law. (Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

E.A. appeals the juvenile court’s order sustaining a wardship petition alleging possession of a firearm by minor. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602;1 Pen. Code, § 29610.) He contends the

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 1 Institutions Code, unless otherwise stated.

juvenile court erroneously denied his suppression motion pursuant to section 700.1. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY At about 6:00 p.m., June 2021, two Los Angeles police officers were on patrol when they noticed a group of approximately eight males standing in the middle of the street near the intersection of 17th and Oak Street. The officers also observed a vehicle in the westbound driving lane of 17th Street that appeared to be attempting to cross Oak Street but was blocked by the group standing in the street. The officers stopped their patrol car to detain the individuals for violating the Vehicle Code regarding pedestrians on the roadway. (Veh. Code, § 21954.) Upon exiting the patrol car, Officer Barrera ordered the group to the sidewalk. All of the individuals complied except appellant. Instead, he turned and walked down the street toward his parked vehicle and attempted to enter it. Meanwhile, as Officer Yahcamara exited the patrol car, he observed a “bulge” at appellant’s waistband, which he believed to be the handle of a firearm. Officer Yahcamara physically detained appellant, performed a pat search, and recovered a firearm. After the group was moved from the street to the sidewalk, the officers determined the vehicle that they initially believed was attempting to cross Oak Street was in fact unoccupied and illegally parked in the driving lane of the street. In denying the motion to suppress, the juvenile court indicated that it had listened to Officer Yahcamara’s testimony and watched the body-worn camera video of both officers. It further stated, “I believe that [appellant] was part of the collective group that was blocking the roadway . . . . ¶ I think it