Van Zanten v. Superior Court In and For San Diego County

• Citation: 214 Cal.App.2d 510,29 Cal.Rptr. 625
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 27 March 1963
• Parties: Darlene VAN ZANTEN, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Respondent. Civ. 7244.

Page 625

29 Cal.Rptr. 625

214 Cal.App.2d 510

Darlene VAN ZANTEN, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of California, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Respondent.

Civ. 7244.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

March 27, 1963.

Edgar G. Langford and J. Perry Langford, San Diego, for petitioner.

James Don Keller, Dist. Atty., and Bruce Iredale, Deputy Dist. Atty., for respondent.

COUGHLIN, Justice.

The issue for determination in this matter is whether a proceeding under Sections 6500-6510 of the Penal Code, to commit a person as a narcotics addict, may be commenced in a county other than that of which he is a resident, or in which he may be at the time the petition instituting such proceedings is filed.

On the evening of December 17, 1962, petitioner, a resident of Bellflower, California, was arrested by federal authorities, on her return from Mexico into the United States, for failure to register as a user of narcotics in violation of Title 18, § 1407 of the United States Code; was placed in the county jail at San Diego; on December 18th, was arraigned upon this charge before the United States Commissioner; and on the afternoon of the same day, upon posting bail, was ordered released.

On the morning of December 18th, a deputy sheriff interviewed petitioner while she was in the county jail; observed needle marks upon her arms; was told by her that she had used narcotics, and would probably continue to do so as long as she was with her husband, who was an addict; and concluded that she was in imminent danger of becoming addicted to narcotics.

For the apparent purpose of keeping petitioner in custody, she was arrested by the deputy sheriff, without a warrant, for a violation of sec. 11721 of the Health & Safety Code, viz., for the unlawful use of narcotics, upon the theory that such offense had been committed in his presence because she then had needle marks upon her arm.

After receipt of the order directing petitioner's release on bail on the federal charge, she was taken before two medical doctors in San Diego by the deputy sheriff; was examined by them; admitted the use of narcotics four or five times over the three immediately preceding weeks; and stated that she had her last injection of heroin in Bellflower, California three days previously. Upon conclusion of this examination she was returned to the county jail; was released; left San Diego; and returned to Bellflower on the same day, i. e., December 18th. No complaint was filed charging her with violation of sec. 11721 of the Health & Safety Code.

On the morning of the aforesaid day, while petitioner still was in custody on the federal charge, the deputy sheriff reported to an assistant district attorney of the County of San Diego his belief that petitioner was a person in imminent danger of becoming a narcotics addict. However, because of administrative procedures adopted by the district attorney's office, which required an examination by medical doctors before the preparation of any petition in such matters, and also required that the petition, when prepared, should be delivered to the County Health Department which in turn should deliver the same to the district attorney, the petition herein, which was dated December 19, 1962, was not filed until December 21, 1962.

The petition alleged that Darlene Van Zanten, who is the petitioner before this court, was a resident of Bellflower, California, and declared that it had been reported by the aforementioned deputy sheriff that she 'is addicted to the use of narcotics/by reason of the repeated use of narcotics is in imminent danger of being addicted to the use of narcotics'; was accompanied by the certificate of one of the examining doctors who therein stated his conclusion that unless confined she was likely to bring about injury to herself or others; and was followed by an order reciting that Darlene Van Zanten was then at Bellflower, and directing that she be confined and examined to determine whether she was addicted to the use of narcotics or in danger thereof. Thereafter petitioner was arrested in Los Angeles County; brought to San Diego County; and was detained in custody in the latter county.

Subsequently she filed a demurrer to the petition; contended that the proceedings were not properly commended in San Diego County; and moved for a change of venue to the county of her residence. These objections were overruled and the motion was denied.

Sections 6500-6510 of the Penal Code prescribe a special proceeding of a civil nature for the involuntary commitment of a person, not charged with a crime, who is addicted to the use of narcotics or in imminent danger of becoming addicted (In re Butler, 59 A.C. 169, 28 Cal.Rptr. 508, 378 P.2d 812); provides that such a proceeding may be instituted by 'the district attorney who may petition the superior court for a commitment of such person' for treatment (Pen.Code, sec. 6500) (Italics ours); directs that upon the filing of the peoper petition 'the court shall order the person sought to be committed to be examined by a physician or physicians, by order similar in form to the order for examination prescribed by Section 5050.1 of the Welfare and Institutions Code' (Pen.Code § 6502); and authorizes a further order directing confinement pending hearing if the petition is accompanied by an affidavit of a physician similar to that filed in the instant matter. It will be noted that the statute does not refer to the district attorney or the superior court of any perticular...