People v. Sanchez

63 Cal.4th 665 (2016)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Officers made eye contact with D, who was standing nearby. D reached into an electrical box with one hand, then ran upstairs into an apartment while holding his other hand near his waistband. D did not live in the apartment, and the officers entered and apprehended him. A loaded gun and a plastic baggie were found on a tarp several feet below the bathroom window. The items appeared to have been recently deposited. The downstairs neighbor, who owned the tarp, testified the items were not his and he had given no one permission to place them there. The baggie contained 14 bindles of heroin and four baggies of methamphetamine, all packaged for sale. D was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of drugs while armed with a loaded firearm, active participation in the “Delhi” street gang, and commission of a felony for the benefit of the Delhi gang. Detective Stow testified as a gang expert. He had been a gang suppression officer for 17 of his 24 years on the force. His experience included investigating gang-related crime; interacting with gang members, as well as their relatives; and talking to other community members who may have information about gangs and their impact on the areas where they operate. Stow read reports about gang investigations; reviewed court records relating to gang prosecutions; read jail letters; and became acquainted with gang symbols, colors, and artwork. He had received over 100 hours of formal training in gang recognition and subcultures, offered by various law-enforcement agencies in Southern California and around the nation. He had been involved in over 500 gang-related investigations. “STEP notices” are given to individuals associating with known gang members. The purpose of the notice is to both provide and gather information. The notice informs the recipient that he is associating with a known gang; that the gang engages in criminal activity; and that, if the recipient commits certain crimes with gang members, he may face increased penalties for his conduct. The issuing officer records the date and time the notice is given, along with other identifying information like descriptions and tattoos, and the identification of the recipient's associates. Officers also prepare small report forms called field identification or “FI” cards that record an officer's contact with an individual. The form contains personal information, the date and time of contact, associates, nicknames, etc. STEP notices and FI cards may also record statements made at the time of the interaction. At trial, Stow testified generally about gang culture, how one joins a gang, and about the Delhi gang in particular. Gangs have defined territories and nonmembers who sell drugs in the gang's territory and who do not pay a “tax” to the gang risk death or injury. D was arrested in Delhi turf. Stow testified about convictions suffered by two Delhi members to establish that Delhi members engage in a pattern of criminal activity. The prosecutor asked Stow if he was aware that D received a STEP notice on June 14, 2011. Stow was asked: “Did D indicate to the police officer in the STEP notice that D for four years had kicked it with guys from Delhi?” and “did D also indicate ‘I got busted with two guys from Delhi?’” Stow responded, “Correct” to both. He explained that “kicking it” means “hanging out and associating” with gang members and that people often used the phrase to avoid openly admitting gang membership. Stow was asked about additional police contacts with D and Stow gave the details of each, relating statements contained in police documents: (1) On August 11, 2007, D's cousin, a known Delhi member, was shot while D stood next to him. Dt told police then that he grew up “in the Delhi neighborhood.” (2) On December 30, 2007, D was with Mike Salinas when Salinas was shot from a passing car. Salinas, a documented Delhi member, identified the perpetrator as a rival gang member. (3) On December 4, 2009, an officer contacted D in the company of documented Delhi member John Gomez and completed an FI card. (4) Five days later, on December 9, 2009, D was arrested in a garage with Gomez and Delhi member Fabian Ramirez. Inside the garage, police found “a surveillance camera, Ziploc baggies, narcotics, and a firearm.” Stow had compiled a “gang background” on D that included the STEP notice and D's statements, his contacts with police while in the company of Delhi members, and the circumstances of the present case occurring in Delhi territory. Stow opined that D was a member of the Delhi gang. On cross, Stow admitted he had never met D. He was not present when D was given the STEP notice, or during any of D's other police contacts. Stow's knowledge of the two shootings, as well as the 2009 garage incident, was derived from police reports. His knowledge of the December 4, 2009, contact was based on the FI card. D was convicted. The Court of Appeal reversed D's conviction for active gang participation and otherwise affirmed. The Court granted D's petition for review.