P. v. Walker 10/18/12 CA6

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » 6th Appellate District » 2012 » P. v. Walker 10/18/12 CA6

State: California

Court: California Eastern District Court

Docket No: H037287

Case Date: 10/18/2012

Plaintiff: P.

Defendant: Walker 10/18/12 CA6

Preview:Filed 10/18/12

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EVERETT ROBERT WALKER, Defendant and Appellant.

H037287 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1198729)

Everett Robert Walker, a young Black man, disembarked late in the evening in November 2010 from a train at the light rail station in downtown San Jose. He was stopped by Santa Clara County Deputy Sheriff Frank Thrall, who suspected that defendant might have been one of two young Black male suspects involved in a sexual battery occurring one week earlier at the same station. The deputy asked defendant to show proof that he had paid fare, and he responded by asking why the deputy was singling him out among all passengers. Deputy Thrall indicated that he had a right to ask defendant for proof of fare and that he resembled a suspect in a sexual battery investigation; he then asked defendant for identification. After he was detained by the deputy and defendant produced an identification card determined to belong to someone else, he was arrested. A search incident to the arrest yielded cocaine base and marijuana.

1

Defendant moved to suppress seized evidence pursuant to Penal Code section 1538.5.1 The court denied the motion to suppress. Defendant then pleaded guilty to the felony offense of cocaine base possession for sale or purchase, as well as a misdemeanor and an infraction. The court suspended sentencing and granted three years` probation. Defendant challenges the conviction entered on his guilty plea, contending his detention, warrantless search, and arrest constituted an unreasonable search and seizure because Deputy Thrall did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that defendant had been or was about to be engaged in criminal activity. Defendant argues that because the deputy did not have a reasonable suspicion supporting his decision to detain defendant, his subsequent production of the false identification and the contraband discovered during the search of his person when he was arrested should have been suppressed. We agree with defendant that Deputy Thrall did not have a reasonable suspicion of defendant`s involvement in criminal activity at the time he was detained. Accordingly, because the trial court`s contrary finding was not based upon substantial evidence, we will reverse the order of probation and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to dismiss the cause.

1

Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND2 I. The Information

Defendant was charged by information with possession of cocaine base for sale or purchase, a felony (Health & Saf. Code,

Download H037287.PDF