Full Opinion

Filed 11/10/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT THE PEOPLE, B337040 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA099878 v. JESUS OCTAVIO GUZMAN, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Yvette Verastegui, Judge. Affirmed. Dwyer + Kim and John P. Dwyer for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Heidi Salerno, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________ The trial court properly admitted evidence police got from searching Jesus Guzman’s social media account. The court correctly refused to suppress that evidence because, at the very least, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied. A jury convicted Guzman of killing rival gang member David Najera. The prosecution’s trial theory was that Guzman belonged to the Lawndale 13 gang and Najera was in the Muertos 13 gang. The two gangs clashed the night before the murder at a hookah bar. Muertos members pistol-whipped Guzman. Najera was not there, but the prosecution’s theory was that the Lawndale gang took this as collective disrespect and sought revenge against anyone in Muertos. The next day, Guzman found Muertos member Najera in the park and killed him in retribution. Guzman also shot at, but missed, another Muertos member named Portillo who was with Najera. The jury endorsed the prosecution’s theory. On October 12, 2022, jurors found Guzman guilty of second-degree murder and premeditated attempted murder. For each offense, they found not true the allegation that Guzman personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death but found true the allegation that a principal personally and intentionally discharged a firearm. The court sentenced Guzman to 22 years to life. Guzman’s sole issue on appeal is his challenge to the police search of his social media account. The affidavit supporting the search warrant recited the following. The affiant was Detective Bradley Jackson, who had substantial police experience, including with gangs. He had testified as a trial gang expert 11 times. Jackson declared as follows. 2 At about 7 p.m. on Friday, April 28, 2017, a police radio call sent officers to a park to investigate gunfire. There they found David Najera, who had died from a single bullet to the heart. Jackson searched the environs and found William Smith living in the park. Smith said he was there in the afternoon and saw two familiar males hanging out: Najera aka “Toker” and Kenneth Kin aka “High Top.” Police on the scene knew Najera belonged to Muertos and Kin was a member of the Southside Players. Smith said at about 6:50 p.m. he saw two other males walk rapidly into the park. They were Hispanic. One held his shirt collar up to conceal his face. They walked out of Smith’s view, and then Smith heard two gunshots. The two men ran back out of the park and fled in an older gray sedan. Smith described the two men. One wore a black and red flannel shirt, while the other had on a black T-shirt with the number 10. Park video showed the Hispanic man with black and red shirt was wearing jeans, white tennis shoes, and a black and gray baseball hat. The other man in the number 10 top had gray shorts, black socks, and black tennis shoes. The tape showed the flannel man shooting. Then both ran to a waiting car: a silver two door Honda Accord with a sunroof. Bradley reported that, two days later, Lawndale 13 tagged gang graffiti in the park. Lawndale 13 tagged their gang name and the monikers of “Yayo” and “Bozo.” Lawndale 13 also crossed out the gang name “Muertos,” which was the name of Najera’s gang. Bradley further recounted information from a “confidential reliable informant.” This informant said Yayo from Lawndale had been the shooter in the murder. The informant also 3 identified the man with Yayo and the getaway driver, and named the social media usernames for all three. Yayo’s social media username was “papperchaser159.” Bradley reported that another detective identified Lawndale 13 gang member “Yayo” as Guzman and confirmed Guzman’s social media account was under the name “papperchaser159.” Bradley’s training and experience taught him that social media providers like Instagram will hold expanded information about the geographic location where pictures were taken, the Internet addresses where the photo was uploaded from, and subscriber information that can lead to the identity of the user of the account. Police also could use this method to retrieve private messages between users. Bradley knew people, including those committing crimes, will post pictures and comments about their activities. Based on this declaration, the police sought a search warrant to be served on Instagram demanding all information related to the account http://instagram.com/papperchaser159 within specific dates, which are not at issue. The police further requested sealing of the affidavit to protect the identity of the informant. (See People v. Hobbs (1994) 7 Cal.4th 948, 959–960.) A magistrate signed the requested orders, which produced evidence supporting several inferences. One was that, before the shooting, Guzman had the means, motive, and opportunity to retaliate against the Muertos gang members in the park. Another inference was that, after the shooting, Guzman displayed consciousness of guilt in different ways. 4 Guzman does not challenge these inferences or the sufficiency of this evidence. His lone appellate argument goes to the adequacy of the affidavit supporting the search warrant. Guzman and the Attorney General dispute whether probable cause supported the warrant. We need not resolve this dispute because the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule would permit admission of the evidence in any event. (People v. Shove (2026) 20 Cal.5th 636, 663–664 (Shove).) Without doubt, a well-trained officer reasonably would have believed the affidavit supporting the warrant was valid or at least presented a close or debatable question on the issue of probable cause. (See Shove, supra, 20 Cal.5th at p. 664.) In an exemplary style that bespeaks experienced judgment by Guzman’s appellate counsel, Guzman concedes there was a reasonable basis in the facts recounted in the affidavit to conclude: ● a Lawndale 13 member was involved in shooting a Muertos gang member in the park, ● Guzman was a Lawndale member, and ● Guzman’s nickname was tagged in the park. Guzman focuses his attack by maintaining nothing in the affidavit suggested that Guzman was involved in the crimes or that his social media account would contain evidence relevant to the crimes. For example, the affidavit does not state who tagged Guzman’s nickname, and it does not include an expert’s opinion about what tagging his name signified. There was, however, ample evidence Guzman was involved. Most prominently, the confidential informant said Yayo from Lawndale 13 was the shooter, and a detective confirmed Yayo was Guzman. 5 As to the next point about whether Guzman’s social media account would contain evidence relevant to the crimes, the affidavit again was sufficient to support a reasonable police belief in the warrant’s validity. For instance, Bradley declared that people committing crimes will post pictures and comments about their activities on social media. The confidential informant said Yayo’s social media username was “papperchaser159.” This sufficed. Indeed, it is common knowledge among experienced judges, and cause for some continuing amazement on our part, that gang members so often boast on social media in ill-advised ways about their recent criminal exploits. The inference that social media would contain probative evidence was sound. (Cf. Shove, supra, 20 Cal.5th at p. 664 [the affidavit’s facts need not pinpoint exactly where the evidence may be found because a magistrate can draw reasonable inferences about where evidence is likely to be kept].) On to the next point. It was unnecessary to identify the individual author of the post-murder graffiti because the message so clearly bore the earmarks of gang claims: a claim of murder responsibility, as well as a concomitant territorial claim by the gang. This is all familiar stuff in gang cases. Guzman offers no alternative interpretation of this graffiti, which was temporally and textually tied to the shooting. As to Guzman’s demand for an expert, affiant Bradley had testified as a trial gang expert 11 times. His expertise was evident and substantial. 6 DISPOSITION We affirm. WILEY, J. We concur: STRATTON, P. J. VIRAMONTES, J. 7