Opinion
F041352.
7-2-2003
In re ROSE G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROSE G., Defendant and Appellant.
Barbara Coffman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, Raymond L. Brosterhous and Charles Fennessey, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
On April 30, 2001, the juvenile court found true an allegation in a petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 that Rose G. committed misdemeanor theft (Pen. Code, § 484). At the conclusion of the disposition hearing Rose was made a ward of the court and placed on probation upon various terms and conditions. Among the conditions of probation were that Rose submit to drug and alcohol testing, not associate with known sellers or users of drugs or alcohol, submit to a drug and alcohol search condition, not possess drug paraphernalia, complete a drug and alcohol program, and participate in family counseling with her mother.
On appeal, Rose challenges the drug and alcohol conditions of her probation.
DISCUSSION
Rose contends the drug and alcohol conditions of her probation, including the search condition, bear no relationship to her offense. Rose points out she objected to these conditions at the dispositional hearing.
A condition of probation must bear some relationship to the crime committed by the offender. (In re Abdirahman S. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 963, 969.) A condition of probation which would be unconstitutional or otherwise improper for an adult probationer may be permissible for a minor under the supervision of the juvenile court. (In re Tyrell J. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 68, 81, 876 P.2d 519; In re Binh L. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 194, 203.)
Rose denied ever using drugs. Rose admitted she "occasionally" drank in the past but denied a drinking problem. Roses mother reported Rose smoked marijuana. Roses father was recovering from drug addiction. Roses mother explained Rose is capable of achieving As and Bs in school. Roses grades, however, are only Cs and Bs.
One of the conditions of probation Rose challenges is the drug testing condition. The purpose of the drug testing provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 729.3 is to detect precursor conduct of criminal activity. A goal of such testing is early intervention. Delaying testing until after a minors drug or alcohol abuse has contributed to recidivist criminal conduct diminishes the prospect of rehabilitation. (In re Kacy S. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 704, 711.) Rose has at least used drugs and alcohol occasionally, which can justify a testing condition of probation. (See In re Jason J. (1991) 233 Cal. App. 3d 710, 719, 284 Cal. Rptr. 673.) From the facts before it, the juvenile court could rationally conclude Rose needs early intervention to prevent addiction or recidivist criminal conduct.
The need for early intervention would justify the other drug and alcohol related conditions of Roses probation. In fashioning conditions of probation, the juvenile court should consider the minors entire social history. (In re Laylah K. (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 1496, 1500-1503, 281 Cal. Rptr. 6.) There was evidence before the court that Rose not only used drugs and alcohol, but that her father was battling drug addiction. Also, Roses grades in school were passing, but below her ability. We find the evidence in the present record is sufficient to support a search condition as a condition of probation, as well as restrictions on Roses use of drugs or alcohol. Rose admitted using alcohol. Though she denied using marijuana, her mother reported Rose had occasionally used marijuana. Roses mother also believed Rose was capable of achieving higher grades in school. The juvenile court was justified in imposing greater supervision over Roses conduct, including imposition of a search condition and restrictions over her access to drugs and alcohol. (Id. at p. 1502.)
DISPOSITION
The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed. --------------- Notes: Because the legal issue on appeal is limited to a challenge to probation conditions, we do not recount the facts underlying the offense.