Delinquency Case Law

In re Ian C. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 856 [104 Cal.Rptr.2d 854]. Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1.

The juvenile court determined that a child had violated Health and Safety Code section 11359 (possession for marijuana for sale). After midnight, an officer stopped a group of seven youths loitering in an area known for drug trafficking. The youths were detained for violating the city's curfew regulation that prohibits children from being in public places at night (San Jose Mun. Code, § 10.28.110(b).) The youths were taken to the curfew center, or a processing center, where typically officers could learn the children's biographical information and who the child lives with. Also, officers could attempt to contact the child's parents for them to come to the center and take custody of the child.

The officer searched the youth at the detention center, complying with the policy that all children are searched to ensure a safe environment. The officer noticed a suspicious bulge in the youth's sock and removed four bags of marijuana as well as $515 found in the youth's shoe. The youth waived his right to remain silent and told the police that the five pages on his beeper were from persons looking for marijuana. The wardship petition charged the youth with possession of marijuana for sale. The youth moved to suppress the evidence, claiming that the search was unreasonable for a curfew violation. The juvenile court denied the youth's motion and found that the youth possessed the drugs for sale. The child was adjudged a ward and placed on home probation. The youth appealed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the juvenile court. In this case, police properly detained the youth for violating curfew. The police may hold a child in temporary custody until a parent or responsible adult arrives to take the child. The police are not required to transport the child home or to await the parent's arrival at the public place where the child was originally detained. Section 626 of the Welfare and Institutions Code states that the police who apprehend a curfew violator must give preference to the alternative that least restricts the child's freedom of movement and still is compatible with the best interest of the child and community. The police may therefore transport children to a curfew center, police station, or other facility where they can wait for their parents or another responsible adult.

The appellate court also determined that that the police officer properly searched the youth. The youth was taken into temporary custody, which is equivalent to an arrest. The search in this case can be characterized as a search incident to arrest even if the officer does not intend to book the youth. Because the justification for the search incident to arrest or temporary custody is for the safety of the officers and other detainees, the officer in this case reasonably searched the youth before placing him in the curfew center with other youths. (See In re Charles C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 420.) The appellate court rejected the child's analogy to In re Justin B. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 879, because in that case the child was subjected to an interrogation about auto burglaries after being picked up for a curfew violation. The youth in this case was not subjected to an interrogation and was taken to the curfew center to await the location of a parent or responsible adult to effectuate the child's release. The appellate court determined that the detention and search were reasonable and therefore affirmed the decision of the juvenile court.