CA3

DISCUSSION

The minor contends the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to a search of his backpack, i.e., the knife and the minor’s statements, because the deputy lacked first-hand knowledge of a rules violation by the minor. In reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, we view “ ‘the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. [Citation.] We must uphold those express or implied findings of fact by the trial court which are supported by substantial evidence and independently determine whether the facts support the court’s legal conclusions.’ ” (In re William V. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1464, 1468.) Here, based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude the trial court did not err in finding that the deputy had an objectively reasonable suspicion to search the minor’s backpack in light of the

2 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 [16 L.Ed.2d 694].

3 information he had received from the school staff member that the minor was causing a disruption by his possession and sharing of a book on marijuana, and that the book was in the minor’s backpack. Thus, the juvenile court did not err in denying the minor’s…