Opinion ID: 1378335
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The detention of codefendant Gaitan was proper.

Text: (1) Appellant contends that the police detention of Ruben Gaitan as he left his apartment was illegal, and thus requires that all subsequent evidence obtained by police be suppressed. [2] We conclude, to the contrary, that Gaitan's detention was an appropriate step in a reasonable police investigation. In In re Tony C. (1979) 21 Cal.3d 888, 892-893 [148 Cal. Rptr. 366, 582 P.2d 957], we explained, It is settled that circumstances short of probable cause to make an arrest may justify a police officer stopping and briefly detaining a person for questioning or other limited investigation.... [I]n order to justify an investigative stop or detention the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that (1) some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2) the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. We noted the converse of this standard in People v. Moore (1968) 69 Cal.2d 674, 682-683 [72 Cal. Rptr. 800, 446 P.2d 800] when we stated that a police officer may not detain and question a person when there are no circumstances which would indicate to a reasonable man in a like position that such a course was necessary to the proper discharge of the officer's duties. (See also People v. Bower (1979) 24 Cal.3d 638, 644 [156 Cal. Rptr. 856, 597 P.2d 115].) In the instant case, the detention of Gaitan was clearly necessary to the proper discharge of the officer's duties. ( Moore, supra, 69 Cal.2d 674.) Officer Buckels had been told by Joe Calderon that appellant and Gaitan would likely be found together. Appellant's accomplice in the robbery was as yet unidentified and police reasonably suspected that Gaitan might be involved. Calderon had given Buckels a fairly detailed description of Gaitan, and information from several sources indicated that Gaitan was currently living in apartment number 231. When an individual matching Gaitan's description left the apartment, the officers would have been remiss in their duties had they not detained the individual for questioning in hopes of locating appellant and identifying the second suspect. We therefore conclude that the detention of Ruben Gaitan was proper.