Thierry S., In re
| Citation | 132 Cal.Rptr. 194 |
| Decision Date | 19 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 27911 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | In re THIERRY S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Donald D. KING, as Chief Probation Officer, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, v. THIERRY S., Defendant and Appellant. |
Grundell, Smith & Farmer by David Fitzpatrick, San Luis Obispo, for petitioner and appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., S. Clark Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., James H. Kline and Kathleen M. Crain, Deputy Attys. Gen., for respondent.
In a petition filed by the probation officer of San Luis Obispo County, it was alleged that Thierry S. was a minor who came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 1, in that he did wilfully damage real property in violation of Penal Code section 594. 2
The trial court found the petition to be true, and declared the minor a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602; he was placed at home with his parents under conditions of probation and under the supervision of the probation officer. Thierry has appealed from the judgment (order granting probation).
At approximately 1:00 p. m. on June 7, 1975, Mr. Gregory Johnson was supervising his children while they played at the Los Ranchos School playground. Johnson's son told him he had seen some legs sticking out of a window, and Johnson went to investigate. Johnson saw Thierry and another minor standing near the school building, next to a window which was broken. The minor companion of Thierry appeared to Johnson to have something in his hand, either a piece of window pane or a piece of metal stripping. Johnson asked the boys what they were doing, and they replied, 'hiking.'
Johnson looked through the broken window and observed that the faucets of a sink, located near the window, were running and that the drain was stopped up with paper towels. Johnson then detained the minors and called the sheriff's department. Apparently another person arrived on the scene and tied the boys up so that they would not depart.
Deputy Sheriff Steven Bolts answered the call for assistance. Johnson told Bolts what he had seen; Bolts observed the damage, and placed the minors under arrest; he testified at trial that at this time he believed that the minors had committed a misdemeanor, but not a felony. The minors were advised of their rights with respect to custodial interrogation and taken to the Juvenile Detention Center. Thierry's parents arrived, and Thierry was readvised of his Miranda rights.
Both Thierry and his minor companion had been carrying knapsacks on the day they were arrested and, while Thierry and his companion were being detained, the arresting officer obtained consent to search these items from the companion and Thierry's parents, but not from Thierry. The knapsack of the minor companion contained some small bolt-like objects, referred to at trial as clevises, which the companion stated he had found on the railroad tracks. Search of Thierry's knapsack also revealed some of these objects.
Thierry was released to his parents, after a promise to appear in juvenile court had been obtained. About two weeks later, Deputy Bolts saw a departmental request for information about certain locks used by the Southern Pacific Railroad. On June 7, 1975, another deputy had commenced investigation of damage done to some railroad signal boxes belonging to the Southern Pacific. Small bolt-like objects had been removed, wires had been cut and batteries removed, rendering the signal boxes inoperative. Bolts contacted this deputy, Anselmi, and told him what he had observed in Thierry's pack.
Anselmi contacted Thierry at the latter's home. After Thierry was again advised of his rights, he admitted, in the presence of his parents, that the objects in his pack had been taken by him while he was damaging railroad property. Thierry told a similar story to a railroad detective the following day.
Hence, the petition in juvenile court was filed for damaging railroad property.
At the trial, the minor's counsel raised the issue of the legality of the initial arrest of Thierry by Deputy Sheriff Bolts, and directed the court's attention to Welfare and Institutions Code section 625.1 3, a relatively new section, added to that code in 1971, concerning the arrest of minors. The People, and the trial court, relied upon Welfare and Institutions Code section 625, on the ground that that general section conferred upon peace officers the right to detain minors when they suspected that any violation of law had taken place, whether in their presence or not, and whether a misdemeanor or a felony. 4
By sustaining the petition, the trial court upheld the legality of the original detention of Thierry, a minor, a detention made without a warrant, and justified upon the ground the detaining officer had reasonable cause to believe that such minor had committed a misdemeanor, although the alleged offense had been committed at a time when the officer was not present.
The issue presented on this appeal is the proper construction of Welfare and Institutions Code section 625.1, and what impact, if any, its passage by the Legislature has had on the broad power granted to police officers by Welfare and Institutions Code section 625, to take juveniles into custody without a warrant. Thierry argues here that section 625.1 limits the power of police officers to warrantless detention or custody of minors only when one of the enumerated circumstances set forth therein is applicable, and that since the enumerated circumstances do not include a warrantless detention or taking into custody for misdemeanors not committed in the officer's presence, Thierry's detention was illegal in its inception.
The People argue on this appeal that the broad grant of power bestowed by section 625 remains the controlling law with respect to warrantless detentions and taking into custody. The People maintain that section 625.1 merely clarifies the grant of power already given. The People also point out that Welfare and Institutions Code section 625, which was enacted in 1961, was amended by the Legislature in 1971, approximately a month after section 625.1 of the same code was passed, substituting age 18 for 21 years and, that if the Legislature had intended to limit the broad authority granted by section 625, it would have expressly repealed the section or would have expressed some recognition of the limitation arguably imposed by section 625.1.
We have not been directed to, nor have we found, any expression of legislative intent underlying the passage of section 625.1. It is clear, however, that when major revision of the juvenile law was undertaken in 1961, section 625 was intended to confer broad authority on police officers with respect to warrantless detention of juvenile offenders. (See generally, Governor's Special Study Commission on Juvenile Justice, Part I, pp. 42-43, 65; Part II, pp. 95-97; compare Pen.Code, § 836, which does not give police officers the right to arrest, without a warrant, an adult for misdemeanors not committed in the officer's presence.) 5
The question before us is what the Legislature had in mind in 1971, in enacting Welfare and Institutions Code section 625.1 ten years after the enactment of section 625. One comment notes that (3 Pacific Law Journal (1972) 'Review of Selected 1971 California Legislation,' p. 367.) Another commentator has stated that 'a 1971 amendment adding Welf. & I. C. § 625.1 has created an ambiguity in cases of misdemeanors committed outside the presence of the arresting officer.' (California Juvenile Court Practice (CEB Supplement November 1975), § 31, p. 7.)
Insofar as we have been able to discover, no reported decision has dealt with the proper interpretation of section 625.1 and its relationship to section 625.
We cannot agree that the Legislature, in adopting section 625.1 in 1971, intended to deviate from the policy that it had accepted in 1961 when the reformed Juvenile Court Act of that year was adopted, following the recommendation of the Special Study Commission. To some extent the two sections overlap. Section 625.1 leaves uncovered detentions under sections 600 and 601 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Section 625.1 added the subdivision dealing with detention for driving under the influence of liquor or drugs. Subsequent to the adoption and chaptering on section 625.1, the Legislature re-adopted section 625 without change except to conform the age limit from 21 to 18 to changes in age of minority adopted that year. All of those factors lead us to the conclusion that the Juvenile Court Act still permits a police officer to detain a minor in all cases where the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the minor has committed a criminal offense of any grade.
Defendant contends that to permit detention of a minor for a misdemeanor not committed in the presence of the arresting officer constitutes a denial of equal protection of law. The contention is without merit. In Part II of the Report of the Special Study Commission, the Commission expanded on its reasons for recommending a broader power of detention for minors than the law set forth for the arrest of adults:
'In the area of arrest, it is recommen[ed] that peace officers be authorized to take juveniles into custody without a warrant when the officer has reasonable cause to believe he comes within the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court Law.
'Since all minors violating state laws or local ordinances come within the jurisdiction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial