In re William V

Filed 4/3/06 In re William V. CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

After the juvenile court found that William V. committed misdemeanor sexual battery on his high school English teacher, it placed him on formal probation with warrantless search and drug testing conditions. William argues these conditions violated his Fourth Amendment rights because they were unrelated to his offense or social history.[1] We affirm.

Factual & Procedural Background

William visited his high school English teacher after school for help with an assignment. After they worked for 20 minutes alone in the classroom, he left the room. Almost immediately, he returned and found the teacher sitting at a student desk working on her attendance book. He asked the teacher to look over another assignment he had completed and she agreed. As she was reviewing his work, William reached between two shirts she was wearing and touched her breast. He said he really liked her and said he never had a girlfriend before. She told him what he was doing was inappropriate and he had to leave. Instead, he repeatedly asked the teacher for a hug and she let him hug her because she did not know how else to get him to leave. When William hugged her, he grabbed her buttocks. He then backed away from her and said he was sorry, he just really liked her, and he left the classroom. The teacher immediately reported the incident to her supervisor.

William was charged with two counts of misdemeanor sexual battery (counts 1 and 2; Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (e)(1))[2] and one count of misdemeanor battery on a school employee in the performance of her duties (count 3; § 243.6). The juvenile court denied his motion to dismiss the petition and place him on informal probation. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 654.) Following a contested jurisdictional hearing, the court found him guilty of all three charges.

William had never before been involved in the juvenile justice system and there was no evidence he had a substance abuse problem. He was a special education student, cooperative at home, and ordinarily quiet and well-behaved. The probation officer nevertheless considered the incident serious because the misconduct was directed toward a teacher not a peer; he refused to leave the room when the teacher asked him to leave; and he assaulted her a second time. â€