Aguilar

People v. Aguilar

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 786·48 Cal. App. 4th 632·55 Cal. Rptr. 2d 716·96 Daily Journal DAR 9992·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6135
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 15, 1996H014132California2,557 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elia, J.

After his motion to suppress was denied, Jaime Aguilar pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine for sale while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351; Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (c)); possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) and possessing cocaine base for sale while armed with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). Aguilar also admitted having a prior conviction. On appeal, Aguilar argues that his motion to suppress should have been granted. We will affirm.

Facts and Procedural Background

On April 13, 1994, about 10:40 p.m., members of the R.E.D. team (Regional Enforcement Detail), arrived at 2014 Colony Street, apartment No. 9, in Mountain View. They planned to serve arrest warrants on appellant and Cecilio Zaragosa.

The R.E.D. team was organized to combat street crime in the Palo Alto area. Appellant and Zaragosa were believed to be engaged in criminal activities with the “Sac Street” gang—an East Palo Alto gang involved with drug sales, stolen cars, and weapons possession. According to one of the members of the R.E.D. team, Palo Alto Police Officer Glenn Hardin, appellant’s criminal record included arrests for possessing a concealed…

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.