In re C.C. CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Jul 31, 2013 No. G047202Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the relaxed standard for school searches does not apply to a vehicle search absent evidence that the vehicle was located on school property or under school control, and because the prosecution failed to establish the vehicle's location, the motion to suppress should have been granted.

Issues

Whether an order imposing probation without a wardship finding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725 is appealable.
Whether the relaxed standard for student searches applies to a vehicle search when the record does not establish the vehicle's location.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that, under the evidence presented, substantial evidence does not support a conclusion the lower standard for searches was applicable to the search of minor’s vehicle.”

“And since the evidence supporting the charges was discovered during search of minor’s vehicle, we reverse the judgment on the basis the motion to suppress should have been granted.”

Filed 7/31/13 In re C.C. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re C.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE, G047202 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DL042030) v. OPINION C.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Deborah J. Chuang, Judge. Reversed. Richard Jay Moller, appointment under the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, James D. Dutton and Michael T. Murphy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

After the juvenile court denied C.C.’s (minor) motion to suppress evidence, she admitted misdemeanor counts for possession of a controlled substance (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 4060) and possession of less than one ounce of marijuana on school grounds by a minor. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (e)). Exercising its authority under Welfare and Institutions Code section 725, the court imposed probation with several conditions, but did not declare her to be a ward of the court. In this appeal, from the judgment, minor challenges the denial of her motion to suppress. We reverse.

FACTS

Minor admitted to David Yates, a campus control assistant, that she had been using her cell phone in class. He asked her to turn over her phone. Without having been asked for anything else, minor also gave Yates paraphernalia used to prepare marijuana cigarettes. Because this raised Yates’s suspicion of marijuana use, he searched the contents of the phone. Some of the messages saved on it suggested minor possessed and possibly sold contraband drugs. Yates then informed both the school principal and the assistant principal and took minor to her guidance counselor. At Yates’s request, minor gave him her car keys and Yates turned them over to Irvine Police Officer Robinson who arrived about 20 minutes after the initial encounter. Robinson searched minor’s car. He found marijuana, a marijuana pipe, and a prescription pill. Robinson interviewed minor in the office of the assistant principal and she admitted the contents of the car belonged to her. The record fails to disclose where the car was located.

In re C.C. CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

FACTS

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J.

BEDSWORTH, J.

ARONSON, J.

AI Brief