People v. Alan R.

California Court of Appeal Jun 7, 1982 No. Civ. 21065Published

Before: Puglia

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the warrantless search of a juvenile detainee's bag at a work program site was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because the state's interest in maintaining security and preventing contraband in a detention environment outweighs the detainee's diminished expectation of privacy.

Issues

Whether the juvenile court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of a detainee's bag at a work program site.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The rule we gather from Bell is that the reasonableness of a search in a detention environment must be determined by balancing the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails.”

“The governmental interest in the security and order of the juvenile hall justifies a relaxed standard for the invasion of the ward’s diminished privacy interest.”

“When the security interests in the instant case are compared to the minimal intrusion of the search into appellant’s privacy, it is clear the search was reasonable.”

Opinion

PUGLIA, P. J.

Following denial of his motion to suppress (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 700.1), the minor, Alan R. (appellant), admitted the allegation in the petition charging possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (c)). The sole issue is whether the juvenile court properly denied his motion to suppress. We conclude it did and affirm the judgment.

In early 1980 appellant was placed on probation for burglary (Pen. Code, § 459). When he failed to comply with a probation condition that he make restitution, appellant was ordered to participate in the Shasta County Juvenile Hall work project for 10 days.

The work project is conducted during the day on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The project site is a partially fenced field adjacent to the juvenile hall. Apparently, most of the wards in the program live at home and have been ordered to participate as an alternative to juvenile hall commitment. However, wards who live at juvenile hall also participate.

In the morning of July 31, 1981, appellant reported to the work project site bringing with him a nylon duffle bag. Normally the juveniles left their belongings at a nearby garage. Cloy Cockrell, a supervisor, testified that the nylon duffle bag was “at all times” within approximately 20 feet of appellant. Later in the morning Cockrell received information from another juvenile, stipulated to be an unreliable source, that appellant was in possession of marijuana. After discussing the matter with her coworkers, Cockrell relayed this information by telephone to appellant’s probation officer, Mr. Pontarolo. She told Pontarolo that

[604]

appellant had kept a bag near him all morning, which was “very unusual.” Prior to the incident appellant had admitted to Pontarolo that he used marijuana and other drugs. In fact he had admitted using drugs “just a day or two before” when he had beeti involved in an automobile accident. Pontarolo believed a pattern of drug involvement was “starting to develop.”

Pontarolo arrived at the worksite around noon. Without consulting appellant, Pontarolo picked up the nylon bag and proceeded to the garage area. Through the duffle bag’s flimsy exterior he felt what he believed to be “other bags inside the duffle bag . . . like lid[s] of marijuana.” Inside the garage Pontarolo unzipped the duffle bag and observed several baggies of marijuana. He then took appellant into custody.

People v. Alan R.

AI Brief

PUGLIA, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief