In re Martin J.
Filed 8/29/07 In re Martin J. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re MARTIN J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MARTIN J., Defendant and Appellant. | G038331 (Super. Ct. No. DL026185) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Donna L. Crandall, Judge. Affirmed.
Rex Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
We appointed counsel to represent Martin on appeal. Counsel filed a brief setting forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against his client, but advised the court no issues were found to argue on his behalf. Martin was given 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. That period has passed, and we have received no communication from him. We have examined the record and found no arguable issues. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We affirm the judgment.
I
A juvenile wardship petition alleged Martin violated Penal Code section 626.10, subdivision (a), possession of a knife on school property. He filed a motion to suppress evidence, and the juvenile court denied the motion. Subsequent to the denial of his suppression motion, Martin admitted the allegation after being advised of and having waived his trial rights. He was not made a ward of the court, but was placed on formal supervised probation. The court indicated that if Martin complied with all the terms and conditions of his probation for six months, he would be allowed to withdraw his admission and the petition would be dismissed.
II
The sole witness at the hearing on the motion to suppress was Trena Becker, Assistant Principal of Brookhurst Junior High School. Becker testified she was present at an on-campus dance when a teacher told her students had reported that another student at the dance had a knife. Later, two students approached Becker and told her there was a student at the dance who had a knife. The students pointed out Martin, who was in the quad. Becker and the principal walked towards Martin and called his name. Martin ran into the gym where the dance was taking place. Becker and the principal followed Martin and escorted him to a classroom. Once in the classroom, Martin was asked if he had anything on him that he wasnt supposed to have. He emptied his pockets and disclosed the knife.
III
The requisite suspicion necessary to justify a search of a minor student on school grounds is a reasonable suspicion. (New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) 469 U.S. 325, 346.) A detention of a minor student on school grounds does not offend the federal Constitution so long as the detention is not arbitrary, capricious, or for the purposes of harassment.(In re Randy G. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 556, 564-565.) The information Becker received was more than sufficient to arouse a reasonable suspicion in the mind of the average person. The school officials in this case were prudently acting to ensure the safety of the children at the dance. The facts do not support an inference they were acting in an arbitrary or capricious manner, and there is nothing in the record to suggest their motivation was a desire to harass Martin. Accordingly, we find no error.
IV
The judgment is affirmed.
OLEARY, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
ARONSON, J.
IKOLA, J.
Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.
Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.
