In re R.G. CA1/1

Filed 5/18/23 In re R.G. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publi- cation or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or- dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re R.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, A165119

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Contra Costa County v. Super. Ct. No. J22-00041) R.G., Defendant and Appellant.

R.G. appeals from the juvenile court’s dispositional order sustaining a wardship petition for felony possession of a gun in a school zone. Appellant contends the juvenile court erred by admitting a statement that was made to police officers without a Miranda1 warning. We are not persuaded and thus affirm. I. BACKGROUND A student at appellant’s high school texted his father a screenshot of an Instagram post that showed two students with guns in a bathroom at the school. The father called the police. The police showed the screenshot to

1 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda).

school staff, who identified appellant as one of the two students in the photo. The staff informed the police that appellant and the other student in the post were scheduled to be in gym class. The police placed the school on lockdown and set up a perimeter around the gym. Before the police could enter the gym, an officer observed appellant walking away from the building towards them. The officer noticed appellant’s clothing matched that worn by one of the students in the Instagram photo. Officer Ezra Tafesse testified that he and another officer “approached [appellant] and he was then handcuffed and detained. . . . [W]e searched him and we did not find the same backpack that we had seen in the photo.” The officer did not provide appellant with a Miranda warning before asking him “if he had [the backpack pictured in the Instagram photo] inside the gym.” Appellant replied, “[Y]eah, the red backpack that said ‘Rebels’ on it [is] inside the gym.” The police then searched the students and the gym, eventually finding the backpack under retracted bleachers. The police found a nonserialized, semiautomatic pistol equipped with an extended magazine inside the backpack. Appellant was subsequently arrested. At trial, appellant asserted Officer Tafesse’s backpack question violated Miranda. The trial court overruled the objection and explained, “At this point I don’t believe it was a custodial arrest.” Based upon the evidence, the trial court found the charge to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. In explaining its reasoning, the trial court noted “very distinct similarities” between what appellant was wearing when he was arrested compared to “what the minor [on] the left of [the Instagram photo] is wearing.” The court also focused on the similarities between the gun and backpack that were in the Instagram post and “what was ultimately found in the gym.” Appellant timely appealed.