In re J.J. CA1/5

Filed 5/24/16 In re J.J. CA1/5 Received for posting 5/25/16 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re J.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A145400 v. J.J., (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J14-0216) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant J.J. was declared a ward of the juvenile court after he entered a no contest plea to a misdemeanor count of possessing brass knuckles in violation of Penal Code section 21810. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602.) He challenges the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing the evidence against him was discovered during an unlawful search by his school principal upon his return to campus. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 700.1) We affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Carol Adams was the principal of Vincente High School, which is located on F Street in Martinez. Appellant, who was then 16 years old, was a student at the school. On October 3, 2014, Adams searched appellant’s backpack and discovered marijuana and a butterfly knife. The search also prompted appellant to remove a set of brass knuckles from his pocket.

1

The People filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging appellant, then 16 years old, had committed three misdemeanor offenses: possessing marijuana at a school (Health & Saf. Code, § 11357, subd. (e)), possessing a weapon (butterfly knife) on school grounds (Pen. Code, § 626.10, subd. (a)), and possessing a deadly weapon (brass knuckles) (Pen. Code, § 21810). Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence under Welfare and Institutions Code section 700.1, arguing the search conducted by Adams was unlawful. Adams was the only witness at the hearing on the suppression motion. She testified that on the morning of the search, she received a text message on her cell phone from a neighbor advising her some students were off campus at the end of E Street next to the creek that ran through the area. Adams explained that she gave her cell phone number to neighbors who called the school to report students who were outside the grounds during school hours, and she had recently received a lot of texts from this neighbor regarding the E Street location. This “E Street neighbor” had originally called Adams with concerns about students congregating on E Street “continually” during school hours, and often complained the students were smoking marijuana.1 In this particular instance, the neighbor did not say in her text that the students were smoking. Sometimes when neighbors reported students smoking marijuana, Adams found them smoking cigarettes; sometimes the students were gone from the location by the time she arrived. She had never personally observed students smoking marijuana on E Street. Adams walked to the end of E Street where she saw appellant and another student sitting on a metal barrier. It was about 9:15 a.m. and the two students were talking. She invited them to walk back to school and they accompanied her back to her office. Appellant was “very cooperative.” Adams did not smell marijuana, nor had appellant said anything about carrying marijuana. Once inside her office, Adams told appellant she was going to search his backpack. She explained: “I have this routine when I do—when I find students off of