(Super. Ct. No. 10F02522)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duarte ,j.
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
A jury convicted defendant Blake Aaron Glass (or Charlton-Glass) of possession for sale of Ecstasy and simple possession of psilocybin and hydrocodone. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11350, 11377, 11378.) The trial court sentenced him to prison for two years, but suspended the sentence and, after defendant stipulated he was a narcotics addict, committed defendant to the California Rehabilitation Center (CRC). (See Welf. & Inst. Code, § 3051.)
Defendant appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We disagree and shall affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The suppression motion alleged a warrantless search had been conducted, resulting in "certain fruits[,]" and challenged the People to defend the search. (See People v. Williams (1999) 20 Cal.4th 119, 127-136 [defendant should specify inadequacy of justification for warrantless search, but is not required to guess about or suggest justifications].)
At the suppression hearing, Deputy Karl Griffiths testified that at about 9:50 a.m. on April 14, 2010, he was dispatched to 6630 Madison Avenue, a business address, "because of a disturbance regarding juveniles or possible juveniles." "[T]here were several juveniles behind the business, and they were either smoking cigarettes or smoking marijuana." Deputy Griffiths arrived at 9:54 a.m. and spoke with "several employees behind the business[,]" who told him the juveniles had just left to the east and they had had "an ongoing problem with juveniles behind their business."
Deputy Griffiths drove east, toward Dewey Drive, and found five young "subjects" carrying backpacks, consistent with the appearance of high school students, less than 100 yards from the business. It was a school day; Del Campo High School was located on Dewey Drive, south of Madison Avenue, about a half mile away, and it was common to receive complaints from local businesses about loitering students. Deputy Griffiths routinely contacts young subjects who appear to be possible high school students that are loitering to "check their age and if they're students and find out why they're not in school." He believed the youths were students and were the youths who had prompted the loitering call. They were walking north toward Madison, away from the school.
Deputy Griffiths radioed Officer McGuire, and then contacted the youths at a gas station on the corner of Madison and Dewey. He ordered them to sit down in front of his car, which they did. When Officer McGuire arrived, the officers began identifying the youths and running record checks. They ranged in age between 18 and 19 and defendant was on searchable probation. The youths admitted having been behind the business that made the initial report, and stated they had been smoking cigarettes. A probation search of defendant revealed various narcotics.*fn1
The trial court denied the suppression motion. Based on photographs in evidence, the trial court found that after the employees told Deputy Griffiths the youths had just left, "within probably 45 seconds of making the turn onto the parking lot, he sees a group of five people that he says look young, look like they belong in high school; no other juveniles in sight. [¶] That, to me, is sufficient to cause him to be legitimately suspicious that they are in fact the people who were just moments before behind the building. But he says more than that. He says they all look like they belong in high school, and ...