In Re Jaime P.

In finding the juvenile court erroneously denied suppression of the loaded firearm found in the juvenile probationer’s car, the majority adopts the rule that, when an officer detains a juvenile driving on a public street, without advance knowledge that the juvenile is subject to a search and seizure condition of probation but with a mistaken belief that a traffic violation has occurred, any contraband subsequently found in the car must be suppressed, notwithstanding the juvenile’s greatly reduced expectation of privacy due to the probation condition and other circumstances surrounding the detention and subsequent search. Because the majority’s rule flouts the federal constitutional standards that govern evidence suppression in California, I dissent.

A. The Facts of the Challenged Detention and Search

In this case, the juvenile was subject to a validly imposed condition of probation that required him to submit his person and property, including his car, to warrantless searches and seizures at any time, with or without probable cause.

While driving a car on a public street with three companions, the juvenile was pulled over by a police officer for a perceived traffic law…

In this case, we consider the continued vitality of In re Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 68 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 33 , 876 P.2d 519 ] (Tyrel J.), upholding a warrantless search of a juvenile probationer by an officer who lacked reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity and was unaware that the juvenile had consented to such a search as a condition of his probation. We conclude that developments subsequent to Tyrell J., including the recent high court decision in Samson v. California (2006) 547 U.S. 843 [ 165 L.Ed.2d 250 , 126 S.Ct. 2193 ] (Samson), our own decision in People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318 [ 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 630 , 73 P.3d 496 ] (Sanders), and lower court cases and scholarly comment critical of Tyrell J., have convinced us that it should be overruled.

FACTS

The following uncontradicted facts are taken from the Court of Appeal opinion in this case. Minor Jaime P. appeals from the juvenile court’s denial *131 of his motion to suppress evidence and the court’s sustaining of the allegations that he drove a vehicle without a license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)) and carried a loaded firearm (Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1); further statutory references are to the…

In this case, we consider the continued vitality of In re Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 68 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 33 , 876 P.2d 519 ( Tyrell J. ), upholding a warrantless search of a juvenile probationer by an officer who lacked reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity and was unaware that the juvenile had consented to such a search as a condition of his probation. We conclude that developments subsequent to Tyrell J., including the recent high court decision in Samson v. California (2006) 547 U.S. ___ , 126 S.Ct. 2193 , 165 L.Ed.2d 250 ( Samson ), our own decision in People v. Sanders (2003) 31 Cal.4th 318 , 2 Cal.Rptr.3d 630 , 73 P.3d 496 ( Sanders ), and lower court cases and scholarly comment critical of Tyrell J., have convinced us that it should be overruled.

The following uncontradicted facts are taken from the Court of Appeal opinion in this case. Minor Jaime P. appeals from the juvenile court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence and the court's sustaining of the allegations that he drove a vehicle without a license (Veh.Code, § 12500, subd. (a)) and carried a loaded firearm (Pen.Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1); further statutory references are to the Penal Code…