Delinquency Case Law

In re Elizabeth G. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 496 [105 Cal.Rptr.2d 811]. Court of Appeal, Sixth District.

The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that the child committed two violations of Penal Code section 32 (accessory after the fact) and three violations of Penal Code section 12101(a)(1) (possession of a firearm). In the immediate aftermath of a shooting, police stopped a vehicle matching the description of a vehicle seen near the scene. The driver, the child’s brother, stated that he had just dropped someone off near his residence. The police went to the residence to secure it while they applied for a warrant. The child, who lived at the residence, was upset that police entered the home without a warrant. She made several requests to do laundry. The police refused these requests and found them unusual because the child had apparently been asleep before they had arrived. The child left and returned. She then gathered some belongings, including her laundry basket, and asked if she could take it with her out of the house. The police asked to inspect the basket. The child showed them some clothes in it. An officer asked to examine it himself, having noticed a towel that remained in the bottom of the basket. As he reached for the basket, the child grabbed it and a tug- of- war ensued. The officer noted that the basket felt heavier than he had expected. The child eventually told the officer that she would leave the basket there. She then left the residence.

Another officer arrived with a warrant shortly thereafter. The police then searched the basket and found three handguns matching the caliber of the guns used in the shooting. After the People filed the section 602 petition, the child moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the seizure of her home and from the execution of the search warrant. In a written motion, the child’s counsel argued that probable cause to support the search warrant did not exist. He also argued that no probable cause or exigent circumstances justified the seizure of the residence. At the hearing on the motion, the child’s counsel addressed the search warrant issue and submitted the matter on the basis of the written motion. The juvenile court denied the motion to suppress. It found that the police acted reasonably when they stopped the vehicle and when they secured the residence. At the jurisdictional hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition to be true. At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court adjudged the child a ward of the court and placed her on probation. The child appealed, contending that her counsel ineffectively assisted her by failing to contend at oral argument that the warrantless entry into her home was not justified by exigent circumstances.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s decision. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the child had to show that her counsel failed to act as a reasonably competent counsel would be expected to do and that she suffered prejudice because of her counsel’s incompetence. The court examined only the prejudice issue. The child’s counsel did contend in his written motion that exigent circumstances did not exist, but he did not present the issue at oral argument. The appellate court found that, even if he had orally presented the argument, it was not reasonably probable that the court would have reached a result more favorable to the child. To reach this conclusion, the court used a four-part analysis of the permissibility of warrantless seizures derived from Illinois v. McArthur (2001) 531 U.S. 326, 121 S.Ct. 946. First, the court decided that, based on the observations of the vehicle and the statements of the driver, the police had probable cause to believe that the residence contained evidence of a crime. Second, the appellate court found that the police had good reason to fear that the evidence would be removed before they could return with a warrant. Third, the police did not search the residence or arrest its occupants. They simply monitored the occupants and prevented them from removing articles that could have contained evidence. Fourth, the seizure lasted no longer than necessary. The police entered the home after midnight and returned with a warrant around 5:30 a.m. Because all four factors of this analysis were satisfied, the appellate court found that exigent circumstances did exist. Therefore, even if the child’s counsel had raised the issue at oral argument, she probably would have lost. The appellate court thus rejected the child’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.