Opinion
Page 1095b
183 Cal.App.4th 1095b __ Cal.Rptr.3d__ In re K.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.S., Defendant and Appellant. A124698 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division April 23, 2010[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION ]
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I., III., IV., and V.
Alameda County Super. Ct. No. SJ08011299-01
THE COURT:IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on March 25, 2010 (183 Cal.App.4th 72; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___ ), be modified as follows:
On page 5, first sentence of the first full paragraph [183 Cal.App.4th 78, advance report, 2d full par., lines 1-4], beginning “Shortly after the decision” is deleted (but retaining fn. 3) and the following language is inserted in its place:
Shortly after the decision in T.L.O., our Supreme Court addressed this issue in In re William G. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 550, 564 [221 Cal.Rptr. 118, 709 P.2d 1287] (William G.) In William G., the majority concluded “searches of students by public school officials must be based on a reasonable suspicion that the student or students to be searched have engaged, or are engaging, in a proscribed activity (that is, a violation of a school rule or regulation, or a criminal statute).” (Ibid.) The majority found this standard “consistent” with
Page 1095c
the T.L.O. standard. (William G., at p. 564.) William G., like T.L.O., declined to address the standard for searches conducted by school officials “in conjunction with or at the behest of law enforcement agencies.” (T.L.O., supra, 469 U.S. at p. 341, fn. 7; accord, William G., at p. 562, fn. 12 [“we do not reach the issue of what standard should apply where law enforcement officials are involved at the outset of a student search, or where a school official acts in cooperation with, or as an agent of, law enforcement”].) Unlike T.L.O. and William G., in our case, a police detective provided the information relied on by school officials to conduct the search and was present when the search occurred. Does this level of interaction justify rejection of the T.L.O. reasonable suspicion standard?
Because the search in William G. occurred before the passage of Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution in 1982 (In re Lance W. (1985) 37 Cal.3d 873, 879 [210 Cal.Rptr. 631, 694 P.2d 744]), the William G. court rested its decision on both state and federal law (William G., supra, 40 Cal.3d at pp. 557-558, fn 5).
There is no change in the judgment.