In re K.J. CA3
Filed 2/6/24 In re K.J. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----
In re K.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C097594 Law.
THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. No. JV141905)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
K.J.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Minor K.J. was a passenger in a late-night traffic stop. He was arrested after an officer saw a gun magazine protruding from under the front passenger seat. Two other firearms were later seized, one from the car and another from minor’s underwear. After the juvenile court denied minor’s motion to suppress evidence of the firearms, minor admitted to carrying a loaded firearm in public. He appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition order following that admission, contending the juvenile court erred in denying
1
the motion to suppress because the traffic stop was unduly prolonged. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On the evening of July 5, 2022, Officers Schraer and Cumberland were on patrol as part of Sacramento Police Department’s northern gang enforcement unit. Their duties included responding to gunshots and conducting traffic stops in known gang areas. While working with the unit, Officer Cumberland was trained in recognizing firearms. Around 11:30 p.m., the officers saw a car on El Camino turn northbound on Truxel at a high rate of speed. Officer Schraer testified that “the area [where] the driver was driving” and “the manner in which she was driving” raised his suspicions that “she could have been involved in something else.” While catching up to the car, Officer Cumberland determined the car was speeding and saw at least one passenger look back at the patrol car nervously. The officers turned on their lights and pulled over the car for unsafe speed. After the car stopped, the officers walked up to it from both sides: Officer Schraer from the driver side; Officer Cumberland, the passenger side. While Officer Schraer talked with the driver, Officer Cumberland learned the rear passengers were minors and observed they were not wearing seatbelts. He testified that he and Officer Schraer had “to figure out if [the driver] was a guardian, or a parent, or what their relation to the juveniles was. And since it was late at night, we [had] to figure out the disposition of the juveniles.” Officer Schraer testified that they needed to do a records check for the minors because of their age and the late hour because “usually with juveniles out late, they may be missing persons.” Officer Cumberland stayed at the passenger side of the car, while Officer Schraer returned to the patrol car for a records check of the driver and one of the passengers. As Officer Cumberland talked with the passengers, he saw one “reach down to the floorboard with his right hand.” When Officer Cumberland “tried to see what [the
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)