Christopher W., In re
| Decision Date | 04 January 1973 |
| Citation | 29 Cal.App.3d 777,105 Cal.Rptr. 775 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In the Matter of Christopher W., a minor. Laren A. BECKLEY, etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Christopher W., Defendant and Appellant. Civ. 31333. |
P. Terry Anderlini, San Mateo, for appellant (Under appointment of the Court of Appeal).
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Criminal Division, William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Appeals Section, W. Eric Collins, Nancy S. Reller, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order adjudging appellant Christopher W., a ward of the court and a minor described by section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
On September 27, 1971, four students approached Oscar Groves, the assistant principal of the high school, and told him a sack of marijuana was in locker B--51. He opened the locker with a master key and found a sack of marijuana. He ascertained that the locker was assigned to the appellant. He then went to the principal, Mr. Dew, and together they checked the locker. They then summoned the appellant and had him open the locker. He made no comment, and when his attention was directed to the sack, he acted surprised. There followed a half-hour conference during which the appellant denied any knowledge of the sack. He was sent home with the suggestion that he get legal counsel, and told to report in the morning. The appellant's mother was contacted at that time.
The next morning the appellant reported to Mr. Groves. After he again denied any knowledge, he was suspended pending a police investigation. The appellant then sought out Mr. Dew and, after asking his confidence, he confessed that he had bought the marijuana at school from a nonstudent, and that he feared for his life if he identified the source. The appellant was allowed to return to school after a day and a half.
The appellant has argued for the application of the search and seizure rules of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to the search of high school students' lockers by school officials. The appellant does not address himself at length to the differences between adult and children in application of the Fourth Amendment. It is clear that the Fourth Amendment does not extend as far when a minor is involved. The United States Supreme Court has made this clear on numerous occasions. (See In re Thomas G., 11 Cal.App.3d 1193, 90 Cal.Rptr. 361, citing Ginsberg v. New York,390 U.S. 629, 638, 88 S.Ct. 1274, 20 L.Ed.2d 195; Prince v. Massachusetts,321 U.S. 158, 168, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645.) A further limitation on the application of the Fourth Amendment in this case is the holding in prior California cases that high school officials are not governmental officials within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. (In re Donaldson, 269 Cal.App.2d 509, 511, 75 Cal.Rptr. 220.) It is clear, however, that the Constitution is not wholly inapplicable to students, and that it does place some limits on the conduct of school officials.
The limitation of the Constitution is not the only factor affecting the activities of school personnel. While the Constitution imposes a limit on their power, the doctrine of in loco parentis expands their authority. The courts have long recognized that parents do exercise a large amount of responsibility and control over their children. Thus in Vandenburg v. Superior Court, 8 Cal.App.3d 1048, 87 Cal.Rptr. 876, the court held that a father's consent to a police search of his son's room, over his son's objection, was sufficient authorization for the search. School officials are said to stand In loco parentis, in the place of parents, to their students, with similar powers and responsibilities. (In re Donaldson, supra, 269 Cal.App.2d 509, 513, 75 Cal.Rptr. 220.) This conclusion is compelled by an examination of the statutes relating to teacher duties, as well as by case law. The California Administrative Code charges school officials with the 'moral condition' of their schools, and specifically charges them to eliminate 'Gambling; immorality; profanity; and the use or possession of tobacco, intoxicating liquor, narcotics or other hallucinogenic or dangerous drugs or substances.' (Cal.Admin.Code, tit. 5, § 301, p. D--33.) The Education Code authorizes the school district to 'exclude children of filthy or vicious habits.' (Ed.Code, § 10552.) Section 10603(a) authorizes suspension of any student '(f)or the protection of other pupils in the public schools' who has 'used, sold, or been in possession of narcotics or other hallucinogenic drugs or substances.'
The doctrine of in loco parentis gives the school authorities the powers and responsibilities of parents, and at times this power and responsibility will apparently conflict with the rules set forth under the Fourth Amendment. This conflict has been before the courts before, and the outcome of the present action is controlled by those cases.
The three cases primarily applicable to this case are In re Donaldson, supra, 269 Cal.App.2d 509, 75 Cal.Rptr. 220; In re Thomas G., supra, 11 Cal.App.3d 1193, 90 Cal.Rptr. 361, and In re Fred C., 26 Cal.App.3d 320, 102 Cal.Rptr. 682. In In re Donaldson, a student reported that she could buy methedrine at school. On instructions from the vice principal, the student purchased some pills. Thereafter, a search of the seller's locker produced marijuana. The court cited Stapleton v. Superior Court, 70 Cal.2d 97, 73 Cal.Rptr. 575, 447 P.2d 967, for the proposition that the Fourth Amendment rules do not apply to searches by a private person and stated that school officials are not governmental officials. After discussing the school's responsibilities, the court concluded:
'(t)he school stands in loco parentis and shares, in matters of school discipline the parent's right to use moderate force to obtain obedience (citations), and that right extends to the search of the appellant's locker under the factual situation herein related.' (In re Donaldson, supra, 269 Cal.App.2d, at p. 513, 75 Cal.Rptr. at p. 223.)
In In re Thomas G., supra, the dean and principal received a report that the student was seen taking pills and acting intoxicated. After taking the student out of class, the dean found amphetamine pills in his pocket. The court found the report to the dean to be the equivalent to the report of a citizen informer, and to constitute probable cause. Once probable cause was established, the school authorities had three options: to make a citizen's arrest or otherwise initiate police proceedings; to ignore the situation; or to make an informal investigation. The school authorities chose the third, and the court approved the choice. The opinion cites Ginsberg, supra, and Prince, supra, for the proposition of lesser applicability of Fourth Amendment procedures to children.
The most recent case on point is In re Fred C., supra, 26 Cal.App.3d 320, 102 Cal.Rptr. 682. The vice principal had received a report that a student had been selling dangerous drugs that morning. When asked the contents of his pouch and pockets, the student produced $20 from his pouch, but refused to reveal the contents of his pockets, and resisted the attempt by two vice principals to search him. After a juvenile officer was summoned, a search produced dangerous drugs and marijuana, packaged in the manner in which they are usually sold. The court held that school authorities have the authority to use force, including searches, in the course of their duties. The court also held that one of their duties was the protection of other students from the sale of drugs. Although the Constitution prevents searches at the whim of the officials, searches are permitted whenever they reasonably fall within the scope of the school's duties and responsibilities. The test for cause is whether or not there was enough information to start a police investigation. In other words, whether the search was reasonable.
We believe that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gordon J. v. Santa Ana Unified Scool. Dist.
...... That sort of turning reality on its head clearly defies further comment." (Ibid., fns. omitted.) . Fred C. was succeeded by In re Christopher W. (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 777, 105 Cal.Rptr. 775, where an assistant principal of a high school searched a school locker after he was told by four different students that it contained marijuana. After reviewing Donaldson and Fred C., the court turned to a formula of its own, but arrived at a ......
-
Scott K., In re
......2831, 49 L.Ed.2d 788.) However, as the majority concede, the rights of minors are by no means coextensive with those of adults. (Ante, p. ----. ) In particular, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures does not extend as far when a minor is involved. (In re Christopher W. (1973) 29 Cal.App.3d 777, 780, 105 Cal.Rptr. 775.) . "(E)ven where there is an invasion of protected freedoms 'the power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults.' " (Ginsberg v. New York (1968) 390 U.S. 629, 638, 88 ......
- New Jersey v. T.L.O.
- State v. Young