Pitts

People v. Pitts

Good Law
117 Cal. App. 4th 881·12 Cal. Rptr. 3d 91·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 499·2004 Daily Journal DAR 4520·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3213
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 22, 2004D041775California2,833 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

Following a denial of his motion to suppress evidence (Pen. Code, § 1538.5), Christopher Pitts entered a negotiated guilty plea to possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) (count 2). The court granted Pitts probation. Pitts appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to detain him, and all evidence seized after the unlawful detention must be suppressed as the direct product of the detention. We conclude that under these circumstances the officer lacked reasonable suspicion justifying Pitts’s detention. Accordingly, we reverse.

FACTS

On October 2, 2002, police officer Gene Loucks entered the Rancho Penasquitos area of San Diego to initiate surveillance of 8619 Park Run Road. Loucks suspected narcotics activity at that residence because of a previous arrest in the neighborhood for narcotics possession. A couple of weeks prior, two San Diego police officers had pulled over Mark Casillan in a residential area near 8619 Park Run Road. After arresting Casillan for being under the influence of narcotics, a search of his car revealed a pound of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.