People v. Jeremy G.

Opinion

NICHOLSON, J. On October 16, 1997, the minor was arraigned on an amended petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) charging him with several criminal offenses. Pending the jurisdictional hearing, he was released that same day and placed on electronic home monitoring. He was directed not to have any weapons.

On October 22, a second petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) was filed charging him with sale or transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, [555]§ 11359—count I), two counts of possession of a sawed-off shotgun (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)—counts II, III), two counts of unlawful possession of a pistol (Pen. Code, § 12101, subd. (a)(1)—counts IV, V), unlawful possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 12101, subd. (b)(1)—count VI), and possession of drug paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364—count VII). These charges arose out of a search of the minor’s residence on October 17.

The minor successfully moved to suppress evidence (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 700.1) relating to the October 22 petition, and the petition was dismissed.1 The People’s petition for a rehearing was denied and they appeal.

Facts

Detective Robert Butterfield testified that on October 17 he received information from a confidential informant that a male Mexican juvenile wearing a home detention bracelet on his ankle was selling marijuana from an apartment at a specified address. Butterfield went to the apartment and knocked on the door. A young girl responded and Butterfield asked if there was an adult present.

The minor, whom Butterfield described as a Mexican male juvenile wearing a detention bracelet on his ankle, came to the door with his mother. Butterfield asked the minor if he was “searchable.” The minor responded, “Yes. For weapons.” Butterfield told the minor to have a seat with his mother and the girl and that they were going to conduct a search of the residence for weapons. A search of the residence disclosed the contraband that formed the basis for the charges contained in the petition filed October 22.

It was stipulated the minor was not under a search condition.

Discussion

The juvenile court accepted as true Officer Butterfield’s testimony that when he asked the minor if he was “searchable” the minor responded, “Yes. For weapons.” The juvenile court granted the minor’s suppression motion because the minor was not in fact under a search condition.