Delinquency Case Law

In re Muhammed C. (Feb. 6, 2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1325 [116 Cal.Rptr.2d 21]. Court of Appeal, Sixth District.

The juvenile court found the child to be a person described under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 for violating Penal Code section 148(a) (resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer). The police had arrested a person on drug charges and had placed him in the back of a patrol car. While the officers were processing the person's car, the child approached the patrol car to speak with the person. Three officers told the child to step away from the patrol car, and he raised his palm in defiance of the officers. Soon after, an officer placed the child under arrest. The child appealed the juvenile court's judgment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Penal Code section 148(a) provides that every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs a peace officer in the discharge or the attempted discharge of any duty of the peace officer's employment is guilty of a misdemeanor. The child contended that he did not obstruct or delay the officers because he did nothing to prevent the arrest of the other person. He claimed that he merely attempted to speak with the person in the back of the patrol car and did not pose any safety threat to the person or the officers. The child also argued that he had a constitutional right of free speech to speak with the person. The appellate court held that a reasonable inference could be drawn that the child willfully delayed the performance of the officers' duties because they had ordered him five times to step away from the car and they were interrupted in the processing of the person's car to attend to the child. The child had defied the police officers' instructions. The appellate court also rejected the child's argument that the First Amendment protected his speech. The appellate court noted that the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers; however, in this case, the child failed to argue that the verbal conduct of trying to talk with the detained person was akin to a verbal challenge to police officers. The appellate court held that there was substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court's determination that the child had violated section 148(a) and that the child was lawfully arrested.