In re ANTONIO B.

Decision Date28 August 2008
Docket NumberNo. B203662.,B203662.
Citation166 Cal.App.4th 435,82 Cal.Rptr.3d 693
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesIn re ANTONIO B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Antonio B., Defendant and Appellant.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Lynette Gladd Moore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Keith H. Borjon and Sharlene A. Honnaka, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

WILLHITE, J.

Two teenagers are walking side by side down a street at around 2:30 in the afternoon. One of them is smoking a marijuana cigarette. Three plainclothes police officers approach them and identify themselves as police officers. The teenager who is smoking immediately throws his cigarette down on the ground, where one of the officers retrieves it and identifies it by smell as marijuana. The teenager who threw down the cigarette is arrested. Appellant, his companion, is handcuffed, after which one of the officers asks for permission to search him. He consents, and the officer finds illegal drugs. The question presented in this appeal is whether handcuffing appellant under these circumstances constituted a de facto arrest without probable cause, such that the illegal drugs found as a result of the search must be suppressed as the product of an unlawful arrest.

We hold that the conduct of the police officers exceeded a reasonable detention under the circumstances, and that appellant was under arrest at the time the officer asked for permission to search him. Because there was no probable cause to arrest him at that time, his consent to the search was not voluntary, and the evidence discovered as a result of the search must be suppressed.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a petition alleging that appellant, Antonio B., was a minor within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 602. The petition alleged two counts: possession of marijuana for sale (count 1, a felony violation of Health & Saf.Code, § 11359), and possession of cocaine for sale (count 2, a felony violation of Health & Saf.Code, § 11351). Appellant denied the petition and moved under section 700.1 to suppress the evidence discovered as a result of what he alleged was an illegal search. The court denied the motion. Appellant then admitted the allegation in count 1, and count 2 was dismissed under a negotiated settlement. Appellant was declared a ward of the court under section 602, and was placed on probation in the home of his parents. He timely filed a notice of appeal under section 800, subdivision (a), from the order denying his motion to suppress and declaring him a ward of the court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Only one witness testified at the hearing on appellant's motion to suppress: Detective Hugo Cepeida, a juvenile narcotics enforcement officer of the Los Angeles Police Department. He testified that he and his two partners were driving westbound on Sixth Street near Chicago Avenue when he saw appellant (who was 16 years old) and another minor walking eastbound on Sixth Street. The two minors were walking side by side, about two feet apart. There was no one else near them. The other minor was smoking what appeared to be a hand-rolled cigarette, holding it the way someone would hold a marijuana cigarette.

The police officers made a U-turn in their unmarked car and parked in an alley. They got out of their car and approached the minors. As soon as they identified themselves as police officers, the minor with the cigarette threw it to the ground. One of the officers picked up the discarded cigarette and identified it as marijuana. They immediately arrested the minor who threw away the cigarette. They also detained appellant because, in Detective Cepeida's experience, marijuana tends to be a communal drug; when one person is smoking it, his companions usually join in smoking it.

Detective Cepeida handcuffed appellant, then asked appellant if he could search him. Appellant gave his consent. Detective Cepeida asked appellant if he had anything sharp or anything that might hurt him, and appellant said he did not. Detective Cepeida then asked appellant if he had anything he was not supposed to have. Appellant replied that he had cocaine in his left front pocket. Detective Cepeida reached into appellant's pocket and removed a baggie that contained four small baggies holding a powder resembling cocaine. One of the other officers made a further search of appellant and found a sock in appellant's groin area that held six baggies containing a green leafy substance resembling marijuana.

When asked by defense counsel why he handcuffed appellant before asking permission to search him, Detective Cepeida testified, We always handcuff people if we're going to detain him [ sic ]. For further investigation, it's our procedure and our policy to handcuff people.” Later, when the prosecutor asked what the policy reason was for handcuffing someone he was going to detain, Detective Cepeida responded, “It's our procedure that if anybody is going to be detained for [a] period of time, and we know we're going to arrest them, we handcuff them.”

DISCUSSION

Our federal and state Constitutions prohibit unreasonable seizures. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 13.) ‘A seizure occurs whenever a police officer “by means of physical force or show of authority” restrains the liberty of a person to walk away.’ ( People v. Celis (2004) 33 Cal.4th 667, 673, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 85, 93 P.3d 1027.) A seizure can be an arrest or a detention. (See, e.g., In re James D. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 903, 911, 239 Cal.Rptr. 663, 741 P.2d 161.)

An arrest “must be supported by an arrest warrant or by probable cause. [Citation.] Probable cause exists when the facts known to the arresting officer would persuade someone of ‘reasonable caution’ that the person to be arrested has committed a crime.” ( People v. Celis, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 673, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 85, 93 P.3d 1027.)

Probable cause is not, however, necessary for a detention. [A]n officer who lacks probable cause to arrest can conduct a brief investigative detention when there is “some objective manifestation” that criminal activity is afoot and that the person to be stopped is engaged in that activity.’ ( People v. Celis, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 674, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 85, 93 P.3d 1027.) “But [t]he scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification. [¶] The predicate permitting seizures on suspicion short of probable cause is that law enforcement interests warrant a limited intrusion on the personal security of the suspect. The scope of the intrusion permitted will vary to some extent with the particular facts and circumstances of each case. This much, however, is clear: an investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. Similarly, the investigative methods employed should be the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer's suspicion in a short period of time. [Citations.] It is the State's burden to demonstrate that the seizure it seeks to justify on the basis of a reasonable suspicion was sufficiently limited in scope and duration to satisfy the conditions of an investigative seizure.’ ( People v. Soun (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1516, 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 822, quoting Florida v. Royer (1983) 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229.)

“The distinction between a detention and an arrest ‘may in some instances create difficult line-drawing problems.’ ( People v. Celis, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 674, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 85, 93 P.3d 1027.) A police stop that began as an investigative detention may “become so overly intrusive that it can no longer be characterized as a minimal intrusion designed to confirm quickly or dispel the suspicions which justified the initial stop. [Citation.] When the detention exceeds the boundaries of a permissible investigative stop, the detention becomes a de facto arrest requiring probable cause. [Citation.] However, there is no hard and fast line to distinguish permissible investigative detentions from impermissible de facto arrests. Instead, the issue is decided on the facts of each case, with focus on whether the police diligently pursued a means of investigation reasonably designed to dispel or confirm their suspicions quickly, using the least-intrusive means reasonably available under the circumstances.” ( In re Carlos M. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 372, 384, 269 Cal.Rptr. 447; see also People v. Campbell (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 588, 595-596, 173 Cal.Rptr. 442 [stop may be an arrest “if the restraint employed by the police goes beyond that which is reasonably necessary for a detention”].)

In the present case, there is no dispute that the police officers had cause to conduct an investigative detention of appellant, but they did not have probable cause to arrest him at the time of the stop. The question presented is whether the conduct of the officers in handcuffing appellant transformed the valid detention into an invalid arrest. The trial court concluded it did not, and denied appellant's motion to suppress. On review of that ruling, we defer to the trial court's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence, but we exercise our independent judgment to determine whether, on those facts, the seizure met the constitutional standard of reasonableness. ( People v. Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 596-597, 174 Cal.Rptr. 867, 629 P.2d 961.)

We begin by noting, as the did the trial court, the Supreme Court's statement in People v. Celis that handcuffing a suspect for a short period does not necessarily transform a detention into an arrest. ( People v. Celis, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 675, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 85, 93 P.3d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
62 cases
  • People v. Turner
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • August 28, 2013
    ...into a de facto arrest. (Celis, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 675, 16 Cal.Rptr.3d 85, 93 P.3d 1027; see also In re Antonio B. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 435, 441, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 693.) In Celis, the defendant, who was suspected of drug trafficking, claimed that he was subjected to a de facto arrest be......
  • CB v. SONORA SCHOOL DIST.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • September 22, 2009
    ...reasonable possibility of danger or flight; or (6) the suspects outnumber the officers. Plaintiff also cites In re Antonio B., 166 Cal.App.4th 435, 442, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 693 (2008): Here, the officers detained appellant because he was walking with another teenager who was smoking marijuana, a......
  • In re D.G., A124605 (Cal. App. 1/14/2010)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 14, 2010
    ...investigative stop, the detention becomes a de facto arrest requiring probable cause. . . .' [Citations.]" (In re Antonio B. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 435, 440-441.) "`[T]here is no hard and fast line to distinguish permissible investigative detentions from impermissible de facto arrests. Inst......
  • People v. Hines
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 14, 2014
    ...were reasonably necessary under all of the circumstances of the detention. (Stier, supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 27; In re Antonio B. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 435, 441.) In Celis, supra, 33 Cal.4th at page 676, a single officer detained two men suspected of drug trafficking. The officer drew h......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 5 - §3. Exceptions to warrant requirement
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...(8th Cir.2009) 553 F.3d 1101, 1104 (investigative detention based on suspicion of petty misdemeanor); In re Antonio B. (2d Dist.2008) 166 Cal. App.4th 435, 441 (investigative detention based on suspicion of smoking marijuana). Despite this broad scope, courts often differentiate between inv......
  • Table of Cases null
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Table of Cases
    • Invalid date
    ...§2.2.1(2)(a) Anthony P., In re, 167 Cal. App. 3d 502, 213 Cal. Rptr. 424 (2d Dist. 1985)—Ch. 4-B, §1.3; §3.6.1(4) Antonio B., In re, 166 Cal. App. 4th 435, 82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 693 (2d Dist. 2008)—Ch. 5-A, §2.2.3(2)(b)[2]; §3.2.2(1)(a) AO Alfa-Bank v. Yakovlev, 21 Cal. App. 5th 189, 230 Cal. Rp......
  • Chapter 5 - §2. Elements for exclusion
    • United States
    • Full Court Press California Guide to Criminal Evidence Chapter 5 Exclusion of Evidence on Constitutional Grounds
    • Invalid date
    ...to determine what was reasonably necessary. In re K.J. (1st Dist.2018) 18 Cal.App.5th 1123, 1132; In re Antonio B. (2d Dist.2008) 166 Cal. App.4th 435, 441; see In re Carlos M., 220 Cal.App.3d at 385. Thus, the fact that the detainee is held at gunpoint, handcuffed, forced into a police car......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT