Filed 10/2/26 P. v. Malik CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A176246
v. (San Francisco County Superior
LATIF TAHEER AMIR MALIK, Court No. 25022816)
Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Latif Taheer Amir Malik’s court-appointed counsel has filed
a brief asking this court for an independent review of the record under People
v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Malik was informed of his right to file a
supplemental brief, and he has not done so. We have reviewed counsel’s brief
and independently reviewed the record, and we find no errors or other issues
requiring further briefing. Accordingly, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
In October 2025, Malik was charged in a complaint with first degree
residential burglary (§ 459;1 count 1); receiving or buying stolen property
(§ 496, subd. (a); count 2); carrying a dirk and dagger (§ 21310; count 3);
possession of body armor by a person convicted of a violent felony (§ 31360,
1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
subd. (a); count 4); false personation (§ 529, subd. (a)(3); count 5); possession
of burglary tools (§ 466; count 6); and sale or possession of sling shots or toys
projecting missiles by air or gas (S.F. Mun. Police Code, § 602; count 7).2
Malik filed a motion to suppress evidence under section 1538.5. Malik
contended that his detention and arrest were unreasonable and sought
suppression of evidence obtained as a result of the search and seizure,
including a bicycle, BB gun, chisel, screwdriver, knife, gloves, multi-tool,
folding knife, and pliers.
Malik’s motion to suppress was heard in connection with his
preliminary hearing in November 2025. The prosecutor called three police
officers as witnesses. Officer Victor Gonzalez testified that on October 21,
2025, at about 3:21 a.m., he went to the area of Pine Street and Mason Street
in San Francisco because of a “call for service.” Officer Gonzalez detained
Malik “[b]ecause . . . he matched the description [from dispatch] of the person
that was breaking into a building.” “[H]e was a male; [¶] He was wearing a
black jacket; [¶] Had a bag that the suspect was wearing; [¶] And was riding
a bicycle in the general location where the crime occurred.” There were no
other people in the area, which was “empty,” and the “orange slash yellowish”
color of the bicycle caught his attention “[b]ecause dispatch provided that
information as the suspect was riding a bicycle that matched that color.”
Officer Gonzalez “got him off the bicycle.” While Officer Gonzalez was
“putting him in handcuffs,” another officer found a “burglary tool . . . like a
2 Malik was subsequently charged by information with first degree
residential burglary (§ 459; count 1), receiving or buying stolen property
(§ 496, subd. (a); count 2), carrying a dirk and dagger (§ 21310; count 3),
possession of body armor by a person convicted of a violent felony (§ 31360,
subd. (a); count 4), possession of burglary tools (§ 466; count 5).
2
chisel” on the ground “next to” Malik. Because Malik could not bend his
arms, officers removed his jacket, and another officer saw a gun (later
determined to be a BB gun) protruding from Malik’s waistband, which Officer
Gonzalez also saw. Officers took off the backpack that Malik had on.
Another officer reached into Malik’s pockets for his I.D. and discovered drug
paraphernalia (a pipe). Officer Gonzalez noticed that Malik was wearing
body armor, found a black screwdriver in the pocket of Malik’s hoodie, and
found a “knife . . . in his waistband, that was completely concealed by articles
of clothing.” Officers also found “gloves on his bags,” pliers, a multi-tool, and
a folding knife. Officer Gonzalez later arrested Malik after the arrival of
Officers Charles Schwartz and Thomas Finn, who had been “speaking with
the 9-1-1 caller and trying to figure out what happened.”
Officer Schwartz testified that he responded to an apartment building
on California Street at around 3:21 a.m. and spoke to a doorman there who
said that he had seen a man wearing black and a messenger bag and riding
an “orange-and-yellow” bike exiting the door to the garage of the apartment
building at approximately 3:21 a.m. Officer Schwartz testified that this
information was provided to the other responding officers who were arriving
to assist. Officer Schwartz saw that the alarm cable on the top of the door
looked like it had been cut. Officer Schwartz was notified through radio that
Officer Gonzalez had detained someone nearby. Officer Schwartz responded
to the location where the person (Malik) had been detained, which was about
one-and-a-half blocks away.3
3 Officer Finn testified that he responded to the apartment building at
around 3:21 a.m., returned later that morning, and spoke with an employee
who showed him video footage of a man wearing black clothing breaking into
3
Defense counsel cross-examined the three police officer witnesses and
moved to admit the body-worn camera footage of one of the officers who was
present when Malik was detained.
The magistrate denied the motion to suppress. The magistrate noted
that the time was “3:21-ish in the morning,” “there was not a soul in sight” in
the admitted camera footage, and “the streets [were], for San Francisco, at
least, deserted.” The magistrate noted that “the proximity of the arrest site
to the actual burglary site” (block-and-a-half) was “another factor.”
In December 2025, Malik filed a motion under section 995 to set aside
the information, arguing again that the motion to suppress evidence should
have been granted. Malik contended that the arresting officers did not have
reasonable suspicion to detain him because the prosecutor did not prove that
any of the information gathered by Officer Schwartz at the apartment
building was communicated to any of the detaining officers before they
detained Malik, the prosecutor did not comply with the Harvey-Madden rule
by calling the police dispatcher as a witness or introducing a recording of the
911 call at the suppression hearing, and the prosecutor did not demonstrate
“sufficient verification” of the call for service by the “anonymous tipster.”4
Malik also argued that, even if the detention were lawful, the officers did not
a side door to the apartment building and leaving with a bicycle that was a
“[v]ery unique color of orange.”
4 Under the Harvey–Madden rule, “ ‘while it may be perfectly
reasonable for officers in the field to make arrests on the basis of information
furnished to them by other officers, “when it comes to justifying the total
police activity in a court, the People must prove that the source of the
information is something other than the imagination of an officer who does
not become a witness.” ([Citations]; People v. Harvey[ (1958)] 156 Cal.App.2d
516.)’ ” (People v. Madden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1017, 1021.)
4
have cause to conduct a pat search or a search incident to arrest of Malik
(because he was not yet under arrest) or his bag (because it was not within
his immediate control).
In January 2026, at a hearing on Malik’s section 995 motion, the court
(Hon. Michael Rhoads) noted that Officer Gonzalez testified that “the
detention was based on information from dispatch about the description of
someone breaking into a building and stealing . . . a yellow bike.” When
defense counsel argued that the 911 caller was not known in this case, the
court responded: “[I]t’s likely [the doorman], given he’s the one that is
watching the surveillance video, isn’t it? [¶] . . . [¶] . . . [W]ho else could it
possibly be.” The court found that there was probable cause for the arrest,
noting that “there’s the burglar tool on the ground during the detention as
well. . . . [¶] If the officer sees somebody matching the description with an
item that’s being described as stolen . . . . Why isn’t that probable cause on
[its] own?”
The court concluded: “I am going to find that the magistrate
appropriately denied the Motion to Suppress under the circumstances. Quite
frankly, there are number of ways to get there. [¶] But the most
straightforward is that there was probable cause as to the burglary . . . at the
time the search occurred. . . . [T]he bike is quite close to the description. I
mean, the difference between yellow and orange at 3:00 o’clock in the
morning when officers don’t see anybody else on the street, and they are
about a block and a half away from the location. The Court’s review of the
transcript indicates that the tool was seen on the ground while the officers
are []placing Mr. Malik into handcuffs, that’s all enough for probable cause.
[¶] . . . There’s no Harvey-Madden issue because it’s clear where the
information is coming from. And there’s corroboration, even absent knowing
5
who the exact 911 call was, given the statements that . . . Officer Schwartz
mainly [got] from folks at the building. [¶] The other part of this is that
Officer Schwartz indicates he is radioing as he is conducting his investigation
to the remaining team. So . . . not the most clear record of when each item is
relayed to Officer Gonzalez. [¶] But there is evidence of the burglar[y] that
rise[s] to the level [of] probable cause.” The court addressed other issues
raised in Malik’s section 995 motion and denied the motion in its entirety.
To resolve the case, Malik agreed to plead guilty to second degree
burglary (§ 459) in exchange for a 16-month state prison term to be served in
county jail. At a hearing in March 2026, the court granted the prosecution’s
motion to amend the information to add a count charging Malik with second
degree burglary (§ 459; count 6), and Malik pled guilty to that count. The
court found that Malik had knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived
his rights and that a factual basis existed for his plea. The court accepted
Malik’s plea.
In April 2026, the court sentenced Malik to 16 months’ imprisonment.5
Days later, Malik filed a notice of appeal and an amended notice of
appeal.6 On both notices, Malik checked the box indicating that his appeal
was “based on the denial of a motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code
section 1538.5.” On August 12, 2026, Malik’s counsel filed a brief asking this
court for an independent review of the record under People v. Wende, supra,
25 Cal.3d 436.
5 The court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss the remaining
counts.
6 The record before us does not reflect that Malik sought a certificate of
probable cause.
6
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the record on appeal for any arguable issues. Malik
was sentenced after he entered a plea of guilty, and he did not obtain a
certificate of probable cause. Any issues as to the validity of his plea are not
before us. (§ 1237.5) The motion to suppress, which was the basis for the
appeal, was properly denied.
We conclude there are no arguable issues within the meaning of People
v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
_________________________
Miller, J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________
Stewart, P. J.
_________________________
Desautels, J.
A176246, People v. Malik
7