In re Delon W.
Filed 8/9/06 In re Delon W. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| In re DELON W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. |
|
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DELON W., Defendant and Appellant.
|
A112417
(Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J0501120)
|
Delon W. appeals from his adjudication as a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, following his plea of no contest to first and second degree burglary. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained following his consent to search because he was illegally detained at the time of the officer's request for consent. We hold that defendant was not detained at the time he gave consent, and we affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
An amended petition filed in Contra Costa County Juvenile Court alleged that defendant Delon W. came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 based on allegations of six counts: first degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459/460, subd. (a)),[1] receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), three counts of second degree burglary (§§ 459/460, subd. (b)), and attempted second degree burglary (§§ 459/460, subd. (b)/664).
Defendant moved to suppress all evidence obtained pursuant to his consent to search during an alleged illegal detention. The juvenile court denied the motion, concluding that the detention was legal based on the officer's suspicion that defendant was in violation of the city's curfew ordinance. Defendant pled no contest to first degree burglary and one count of second degree burglary; the juvenile court sustained the petition as to those counts and the other counts were dismissed. The court adjudged defendant a ward of the court and placed him at a ranch program for six months.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Officer Matthew McClaflin of the San Pablo Police Department was the only witness at the hearing on the motion to suppress. He testified that on Tuesday, June 21, 2005, at about 1:50 a.m., he saw defendant walking eastbound on El Portal Drive in San Pablo. The officer was aware of a municipal ordinance that imposed a citywide curfew of 10:00 p.m. for people under the age of 18. Defendant appeared to be under the age of 18. Officer McClaflin drove past defendant and parked his marked patrol car approximately 25 to 40 feet in front of defendant.
Officer McClaflin, who was in uniform, exited the patrol car and waited next to the car as defendant approached. The car's headlights were on but the emergency lights and spotlights were not on. As defendant walked by, the officer asked, â€
