*1 8, 1994.) S035032. Dec. [No. T. of SUSAN and Estate the Person
Conservatorship DEPARTMENT, Petitioner and HEALTH MENTAL LAKE COUNTY Respondent, T., Objector Appellant.
SUSAN
Counsel Harrison, Court, and Mat David B. under appointment Supreme Zwerling Objector Appellant.
Carmela F. Simoncini and Joe Simanek as Amici Curiae behalf Objector Appellant. Reeves, Counsel,
Cameron Walker, Richard H. and J. Ross County Magnuson L. Counsel, for Petitioner and Deputy County Respondent. General, Williamson, Daniel Chief Assistant E. Lungren, Attorney George Bass, General, General, Ronald Ronald A. Assistant Attorney Attorney General, John J. E. Niver and Clifford K. Meehan, Attorneys Thompson, Deputy Baldwin, (Alameda), District William M. Assistant Dis- Attorney *4 trict District as Amici Anthony Douglas, Deputy Attorney, and Attorney, Curiae on behalf of Petitioner and Respondent.
Opinion WERDEGAR, J. a investigating treating physician’s report —After others, T.1 was a and a to herself and to the Lake Susan schizophrenic danger Mental Health a crisis services County Department (department) dispatched worker to Susan T.’s home. She was waste, amidst human and animal living bagged water,
without heat or She was taken to a psychiatric electricity. later, Several another mental health worker from the depart- hours hospital. ment took of the interior of Susan T.’s These apartment. photographs recorded the conditions under which Susan T. had been photographs living. at a were admitted into evidence over Susan T.’s objection photographs later her the conservatorship proceeding brought against by guardian. public We review to determine whether the to the granted applies trial of conservatee’s proposed grave disability conservatorship pro- Act, under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Welfare and Institutions ceeding Code section 5000 et Guided the of both our earlier seq.2 by analyses Court, decisions and those of the United States we decline to Supreme extend the rule to these types proceedings.
I. The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (the act) The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act treat- governs involuntary ment of the ill in California. Enacted mentally by Legislature Code, 1We have & protect privacy. abbreviated Susan T.’s name to her Welf. Inst. 5325.1, (b).) subd. § 2All statutory further unlabelled references are Welfare and Institutions Code. to the and indefinite ending inappropriate its among goals includes the act ill, and treatment evaluation prompt the mentally providing commitment disorders, public protecting mental guaranteeing with serious of persons through judi- committed the involuntarily rights safeguarding safety, treatment, review, place- supervision individualized cial and providing of a disabled means by services for gravely ment limits commitment successive 5001.) The act involuntary (§ program. detention duration, a 72-hour with beginning of increasingly longer periods extended certifica- 5150), bemay which (§ for evaluation and treatment be 5250); that initial may treatment (§ period tion of intensive for 14 days suicidal. detained is if the person an additional 14 days extended for so, certifica- to do 5260.) 14-day counties that have elected (§ In those intensive for further for an additional 30-day period tion be extended may be 5270.15.) imminently dangerous may found to be (§ treatment. Persons beyond 14-day period. for to 180 days committed involuntarily up detention, commit- 5300.) 30-day 14-day After the initial 72-hour (§ hearing before an appointed a certification hearing ments each require has unless the detainee cause for confinement officer to determine probable 5256.1, (§§5256, the writ of habeas corpus. filed a for petition 5270.15, 5275, court 5276.) commitment superior A 180-day requires 5301.) order. (§ for to one up year authorizes the of a conservator act appointment *5 disorder as a result of a mental determined to be disabled person gravely 5350.) The (§ pro unable or treatment.3 voluntary
and unwilling accept of his or her trial on the issue conservatee is entitled demand a posed jury trial, if and to counsel at necessary. has a grave disability, right appointed 5350, 5365.) (§§ party seeking imposition a reasonable must conservatee’s beyond grave disability prove proposed (Conservatorship doubt and the verdict must be issued a unanimous jury. P.2d (1979) 23 Cal.3d of Roulet
II. Facts her, Susan T. was 48 At the time these were instituted against Nice, old California. and alone in a detached studio years living apartment In October of 1991 She had a for history hospitalization schizophrenia. grave her Dr. wrote to general Bradley, department expressing physician, that Susan T. concern about Susan and mental health. He stated T.’s physical around her and was a and a to herself and to anyone schizophrenic danger letter, the to Dr. Bradley’s that she needed to be In hospitalized. response disabled,” case, . basic provide “unable to for. . 3“Gravely as relevant to this is defined as food, (h)(1)(A).) (§ personal clothing, for or shelter.” subd. needs After an into Susan T.’s situation. speak- instituted investigation department T.’s ability concern over Susan members who family expressed with ing herself, T. interview Susan sent a crisis worker to department care for combative, when her interview terminated Susan T. became home. The was the Lake loud and She to a facility by County was taken agitated. psychiatric Sheriff the crisis worker and the sheriff’s deputy under section 5150. Both trash and human and animal waste described the as with filthy, apartment stored in house. around the plastic bags taken into em- custody, department
Several hours after Susan T. was “take some pictures was instructed to to Susan T.’s and go apartment ployee as Bonnie Taylor, property evidence.” explained employee, she needed to that Susan T. been taken to the and had manager hospital, “if Susan T. “had there” because her any know if important anything there[,] taken care of then we are for those being responsible belongings T.’s Bonnie was let into Susan apart- while she was hospitalized.” Taylor of its and took nine Polaroid interior. ment then by manager photographs 11, 1991, filed Public Guardian Lake County On November for of Susan and estate T. for of conservator petition person appointment on November 5352. A conservator was under section temporary appointed jury the issue of Susan T.’s was tried grave disability December 23 and 24. had evaluated Susan
After from a who presenting testimony psychiatrist her, had counsel T. interviewed the staff who been treating psychiatric had taken Bonnie who for the called guardian Taylor, employee public She a “licensed of Susan residence. stated she was T.’s photographs tech” and the care for Lake County, providing psych continuing supervisor testified she and medication clients. She placement services hospitalized home Susan T. into from her was informed had been taken custody *6 she “was out and take some on a 72-hour hold and that to go hospitalized who She further testified she the pictures.” manager explained property in she was and that she needed to know if there “was anything important” residence, as was for her Susan T.’s the responsible belongings department T.’s while she was The admitted her to Susan apart- hospitalized. manager she took nine of the were ment and interior. Those photographs photographs evidence counsel. Ms. Taylor admitted into over the Susan T.’s objection (1) a summarized the of each which depicted: briefly subject photograph, area, comer; in the comer of the kitchen with a trash large green bags pile area, (2) boxes in the with accumulation of small and toys an sleeping counter; comer; kitchen, (4) the (3) a comer of the and showing the stove bathroom, sink; excrement (5) rocks in with dog the showing newspapers them, with dried cereal trash and old cereal bowls of large green bags, pile drain; shower, (7) the them; another view of with rocks over the in the the area, of cereal excrement and bowls adjacent dog sleeping showing blankets; 10 to 12 showing large a comer apartment, rumpled and another view excrement on trash and bags dog newspapers; green area. the sleeping from the and from manager additional testimony property
After hearing herself, disabled within the the found Susan T. gravely Susan T. jury act, the as guardian and the court appointed county’s public definition the trial court erred in her conservator. Susan T. appealed, contending the of Bonnie as well as Taylor, her motion to suppress testimony denying she had taken.4 A of the Court of con- the photographs majority Appeal Bonnie into Susan T.’s home violated the Fourth cluded: Taylor’s entry Amendment; the mle should exclusionary conservatorship pro- apply act; the trial court have the motion to granted under the should ceeding court, however, affirmed the the concluding jury suppress. judgment, “could and doubtless would” have found Susan T. disabled on the gravely other, evidence, basis of obtained the of Susan properly including testimony result, T. herself. The in but did not concurred the dissenting justice agree with the mle should be in conclusion majority’s exclusionary review, under the act. The proceedings department contending petitioned Bonnie into Susan T.’s home did not violate the Fourth Taylor’s entry and, did, Amendment even if it we should not mle to under the act. We granted review.5
III. Discussion mle, The federal when it applies, requires suppres sion of evidence seized violation of the Fourth Amendment to the appeal instructing jury 4Susan T. also contended on that the trial court had erred willingness ability proposed of friends and relatives to assist a conservatee could not writing. Appeal be considered unless the offer of such assistance was Court of (e)(2), by rejected concluded the instruction was mandated section subdivision argument impermissibly infringed proposed right the statute conservatee’s constitutional place jury. general relevant evidence before the It further noted the irrelevance of the case, instruction to this in which there was virtually any party no evidence—either from third availability party or from Susan T. herself—of requested of such assistance. Neither has issue, that we consider this consequently express opinion and we no on it. longer conservatorship. argues department’s 5Susan T. is no in a She we should dismiss the petition improvidently as granted because the issues raised in it have been mooted (one termination of her conservatorship. relatively year) Because a brief *7 comparison appellate likely with the we process, application find it that this issue—the of the exclusionary rule conservatorship proceeding capable recurring, under the act—is one yet evading appropriate review mootness. We therefore conclude it is to address because of 645, 647, (1985) the issue in Conservatorship this case. 1 Mantón 39 Cal.3d fn. [217 253, 1147].) 1012 643, 648 (1961) 367 U.S. v. Ohio States. (Mapp the United
Constitution
933];
United
1086,
1684,
Weeks v.
1081,
A.L.R.2d
S.Ct.
84
81
L.Ed.2d
[6
341],
652,
on other
overruled
34 S.Ct.
L.Ed.
687-688, 104 S.Ct. in a of evidence rule bars the admission exclusionary
Whether the seizure that first, of a search or on the existence civil depends, Constitu the federal Amendment of of the Fourth violates protections case, exclusionary trial court rejected application In this tion. ruling and no express with little argument to conservatorship proceedings On in fact occurred. appeal, search whether an unlawful the question not thereby rule should apply, that the argued only department however, us, the department Before a search occurred. conceding impliedly was not a into the home entry that Bonnie Taylor’s contends variously circumstances and search, it was by exigent that if it was a search justified event, was, authorized unreasonable, that it any not therefore section 5156.6 indicated, in its brief before us. As are not
These arguments properly that the argued only the Court of the department before Appeal assumes under the act. argument not rule should Amendment, only leaving open violated the Fourth conduct department’s unlawful course of the evidence seized of whether the the question Bonnie argued time the The first department search should be suppressed. left personal property is detainee’s part, that unless the provides, relevant 6Section or within the detention guardian, at the time of responsible relative or possession in the of a thereafter, effecting detention must person or other peace officer time reasonable possession in the personal property safeguard precautions preserve take “reasonable person occupied by the premises [detained].” of or on the *8 Susan T.’s home was lawful was in its for petition into Taylor’s entry “It is a rule of that an practice fundamental rehearing. appellate time court need not consider issues raised for the first a by petition appellate 778, (1982) (Brown v. Court Superior rehearing.” Cal.App.3d 324]; 505, v. Cal.3d County Imperial McDougal Cal.Rptr. of also, Court, 14]; see Cal. Rules of 29(b)(1) a matter of on for review we will not policy, petition normally [as that consider issue could have been but was not raised in any timely the briefs filed in the Court of Appeal].) note, moreover,
We
the
not
department’s arguments
supported by
the record. The
that Ms.
department’s argument
was not an
Taylor’s entry
search is
on the
section
illegal
byit
5156 to
premised
obligation imposed
5150;
the
safeguard
secure
detained under section
property
persons
the
contends Bonnie
was
Susan
department
T.’s home
Taylor
dispatched
to secure her
What the
does not
but
property.
department
argue,
expressly
that,
what we
from its
imply
argument, is
were Ms.
into
Taylor’s entry
Susan
T.’s home
pursuant
under section
department’s authority
that
entry would fall within the
search
to the
inventory
warrant re
exception
Fourth
quirement
under
Amendment
Colorado
authority
Bertine
U.S. 367
L.Ed.2d
107 S.Ct.
and South
738]
Dakota v. Opperman
Ms. testified she was Taylor “informed that been taken [Susan ha[d] T.] from her house that I was to out take some as go evidence.” pictures Although Ms. gained to Susan Taylor T.’s entry apartment by explaining property her under manager obligations section there is no evi- dence in the record she did in secure of Susan T.’s any personal fact possessions, secured, that any such needed to be or possessions that the believe, had department caseworker, reason to from the any report otherwise, sheriff’s or deputy that Susan T. had that any possessions needed securing. she took were not of photographs have property might thus, and, some secured, value need to be but recorded instead the general disorder of the excrement, apartment, and rocks in the bags sinks and shower.7 Nor is there any evidence Taylor Ms. furnished prepared and to the court, as by section required report she describing property 7The photographs labels on the dispel any photographs themselves notion that were kitchen,” area,” inventory meant possessions: Susan T.’s “trash “sleeping “kitchen stove
1014 cases it. search inventory took to secure steps and the she secured that, the conduct- agency to survive constitutional scrutiny, further indicate must to “standardized criteria.” according the be inventory operating ing 374, Bertine, at 479 at fn. 6 L.Ed.2d p. p. v. U.S. [93 Colorado therein.) The to introduce 747], any cited failed department and cases under a securing standardized criteria for detainee’s property evidence it has and, how the no effort to demonstrate made section 5156 consequently, within of such criteria. taken have fallen the scope that were might photos a entered a that a official government We are left with record establishing warrant, and in the authorization nor a statutory home with neither private circumstances, for the sole demonstrable exigent purpose absence of any of the of the to obtain evidence household the interior home photographing “ We stated that a ‘search’ is a govern have disability. er’s mental of, an area citizen’s in intrusion or invasion a personal security mental upon, (People Mayberry a expectation privacy.” in which he has reasonable 617, 810].) the Although 341 (1982) Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. [182 no below, we have under facts would presented issue was not litigated into T.’s home constituted Bonnie Susan concluding Taylor’s entry difficulty therefore, Amendment. with Assuming, search under the Fourth a occurred, we pro the Fourth Amendment out a search violating deciding, in a rule be should applied ceed to determine whether under act. conservatorship proceeding rule, the [exclusionary] of the
“In the and turbulent complex history from it evidence Court never has to exclude States Supreme] applied [United 428 U.S. (Janis, supra, civil federal or state.” proceeding, a 1046, 1057].) in a forfeiture action. court has L.Ed.2d L.Ed.2d (One Pennsylvania Sedan v. Plymouth forfeiture, 1246].) so on theory although 85 S.Ct. It did in a criminal one civil is effect substance technically proceeding, forfeiture of the Fourth Amendment. subject jurisprudence “[A] a criminal in Its like object, proceed- is character. quasi-criminal (Id. at an offense law.” against is the commission of ing, penalize same conclusion This had reached the court p. (1964) 62 Cal.2d earlier in v. One 1960 Cadillac year People Coupe 706], the same reasoning: P.2d under 96-97 nearly comer,” room,” shower,” area,” sink,” [qn rocks “rocks in “bed “sleeping “bathroom area,” living “sleeping “trash area.” just Fourth privacy her not under the argues expectation 8Susan T. the search violated (“[a]ll I, people are Amendment also under section of the state Constitution but article identify including “privacy”). To rights” independent nature free and and have inalienable analysis of before right to affect the issue appear another does not privacy source us, right exclusionary mle. namely, triggers the whether a violation of that the label which be attached to the it “Whatever is may proceeding, apparent that the forfeiture deterrent nature and that there is a purpose close to the aims and of criminal law enforcement. On identity objectives the same rules should policy state conduct improper *10 whether the of one’s or proceeding contemplates deprivation liberty property.” [one’s]
We find no between the aims and of the act and similarity objectives those of the criminal law. What we have said of commitment for the proceedings 6500-6513) retarded is (§§ true of mentally equally conservatorship proceed under the act: “The commitment is not initiated in ings or neces response, related, acts; duration, sarily criminal it is of limited any at the expiring end of one new is to the same year any as an petition subject procedures [citation]; original commitment need not be a petitioner public prosecu interest, tor ... . The sole state legislatively is the custodial expressed, care, treatment, and diagnosis, who are unable protection persons to take care of themselves and who for their own well and the of others being safety cannot be left adrift in the The commitment not community. may reasonably be deemed either in its punishment or It is design not purpose. analogous criminal (Cramer proceedings.” Tyars Cal.3d 137 [151 793]; see Cal.Rptr. also Baber Conservatorship of 542, 550 Cal.App.3d is conservatorship proceeding 262] [“[a] act, not a for a prosecution but an particular to determine a condition attempt which is subject change”].) Court has Supreme considered the the exclu- propriety applying rule in civil
sionary
cases, Janis,
two subsequent
supra, 428
U.S.
and INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1983)
In supra, 428 U.S. the court considered whether evidence seized a state faith, criminal by law officer in but good nonetheless in violation Amendment, of the Fourth was admissible in a counterclaim for an tax unpaid assessment on behalf brought of the Internal Revenue Service in response suit for a taxpayer’s refund. court rejected argument the deterrent of the rule puipose would be furthered its in this application federal tax Even proceeding. rule’s deterrent effect on the assuming state officers police search, who conducted the illegal the court nevertheless concluded “the additional deterrence marginal provided by forbidding the evidence States from government] using United sovereign
different
[the
society
does not
the cost
outweigh
surely
a civil proceeding
L.Ed.2d at
(Id.
situation.”
at
453-454
p.
the rule to that
pp.
extending
cost,
is the
of “what
is
1060].)
concededly
quite clearly,
suppression
That
L.Ed.2d at
(Id.
448-449
pp.
relevant
evidence.”
1032, the court considered whether the
468 U.S.
supra,
In Lopez-Mendoza,
It cited
in deportation proceedings.
rule should be applied
Janis,
“a framework for
deciding
as
forth
setting
rule is
of the exclusionary
appropriate.
application
what types
be,
the Court
in Janis that there
the exercise may
recognized
as
Imprecise
social benefits of excluding unlawfully
but to
the likely
no choice
weigh
*11
On the benefit side of the balance
evidence
costs.
likely
seized
against
rule,
one, “is to
if not the sole
of the [exclusionary]
‘the
purpose”
“prime
’
side there is
conduct.”
On
cost
deter future unlawful police
[Citations.]
flow
costs that
secondary
of often
evidence and all
the loss
probative
that therefore
less accurate or more cumbersome adjudication
from the
787],
L.Ed.2d at
We
to the question
this case:
presented
should we
by
apply
rule to
under
the act?
Following
9ReIying on principles
decisions,
articulated in our
Appeal
generally
Court of
has
rejected application
of the
proceedings,
rule in
finding
noncriminal
inapplica
it
juvenile
ble in
dependency proceedings, high
disciplinary proceedings
school
and teacher-
(See
dismissal proceedings.
(1976)
In re
5],
Robert P.
61 Cal.App.3d
Cal.Rptr.
(1978)
and In re Christopher B.
the lead of misconduct alleged would deter the type of the rule to which application into the residence unauthorized entry mental health worker’s in this case—a that, at least as section 5150. We have recognized detained under of a person when, matter, is at its as effect of the rule greatest the deterrent a theoretical here, effected the search is the same agency true the government introduce the fruits of its search (as matter) that seeks to agency practical Bar, 1032; Emslie v. State supra, Lopez-Mendoza, at trial. is, however, reason to doubt 210.) There substantial 11 Cal.3d this, is, as more than effect in cases such anything the actual deterrent theoretical. when the fruits of the of the rule is at its greatest
The deterrent value to which the rule in evidence at a applies. search will be required Hence, officer, in the task of criminal investigating engaged the police used, all, if in a his or her labor will be knows the fruits of activity, When, rule will be in which the exclusionary applied. criminal prosecution however, to which the of the fruits of the search a proceeding use certain, effect of the rule is proportionately is less the deterrent applies conser- under section 5150 leads to a weaker. not detention Certainly every indeed, that con- itself is to ensure designed the act vatorship proceeding; resort, when treat- voluntary as a last brought servatorship proceedings treatment has been refused and the involuntary provisions ment temporary relying special protection to which subsequent proceeding, dismissal as well civil law].) children are entitled under state applicable type disciplinary proceeding in one before the State The rule has been held (Dyson Cal.App.3d Bd. 711 [262 Personnel Board v. State Personnel weighed application disciplinary [concluding in favor of its deterrent effect of rule 112] juvenile facility, because the officers who conducted proceeding against a counselor in a the counselor’s home for employees specific agency were that both searched search him]), against but not property prosecuted resulting disciplinary proceeding stolen *13 (see Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d 264 Finkelstein v. State Personnel Bd. 218 another 133], exclusionary should not be May [concluding the rule petn. for review den. because, although Personnel Board applied disciplinary proceeding before the State agency, was not person performing employee prosecuting the search the search was misconduct, documents in employee but rather to ensure all confidential conducted to uncover move; hence, exclusionary not have application of rule would properly office were boxed for search]). deterred licensing proceedings in have majority considering application of cases its medical Cal.App.2d Nursing Registration apply refused to it. Pierce v. Board etc. apply rule would to Cal.Rptr. [expressing some doubt as to whether the 107] license]; Quality nursing Pating Assurance revocation of a v. Board Medical exclusionary rule in a Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. [refusing apply to vicarious 608 [182 20] Assurance, finding Quality deterrent disciplinary proceeding before the Board of Medical life-threatening outweighed by protecting public potentially the from effect state’s interest (1966) 241 Medical Examiners part physicians]; conduct on the but see Elder v. Bd. of deciding, apply rule would to Cal.App.2d [assuming, without the 304] medicine].) right practice to hearing contemplates deprivation administrative that of the Each the act have been exhausted. level of treatment decreases provided the In will be such circum- conservatorship necessary. likelihood proceeding stances, worker is his or the mental health to her conduct unlikely shape (Cf. of evidence at such a exclusion anticipation proceeding. Lopez- Mendoza, at few supra, p. U.S. [noting 789] arrests of undocumented aliens lead to formal deportation proceedings].)10
Moreover, the the detainee remains in treatment under the longer interim act, less involuntary commitment need has the provisions depart- ment to on rely evidence extrinsic to the detainee’s commitment to demon- act; strate relevant grave under most evidence of that disability will be disability derived from the exclusion of earlier primarily patient. seized evidence would therefore have little effect the outcome and the effect proceeding, deterrent of the rule would be proportionately weaker. we have
Finally, been asked consider whether the only exclusionary should rule be we have not been conservatorship proceedings; asked, consider, and hence have no occasion to whether we would i.e., rule the act’s earlier interim proceedings, 14-day 30-day 5250, 5270.15.) note, however, certifications for (§§ intensive treatment. We the Legislature has that in expressly provided both of certification types hearings, evidence which is relevant “[a]ll that the establishing person is certified or is not as a result of a mental . . . disorder disabled gravely . shall be . . admitted at the hearing considered by officer.” hearing 5256.4, (d), 5270.15.) (§§ subd. We have interpreted similarly phrased constitutional provision relating criminal as an evidencing W., intent eliminate (In rule. re Lance exclusionary 37 Cal.3d 873, 886-890.) An the use of evidence in a precluding would have no little or deterrent effect on mental health worker whose first concern likely most for a securing disabled gravely immediate or person interim treatment under the or 14-day 30-day certifications, in no which rule applies.
Removed theoretical, from the realm of the the deterrent effect of apply- the rule in ing conservatorship cases is at best. this marginal Against effect, marginal deterrent we balance the social cost of the exclu- applying *14 rule to sionary noted, conservatorship As proceedings. previously among Inc., 10Amicus curiae Advocacy, Protection and support in its brief in states T. Susan temporary percent 5352.1) that conservatorship 97 hearings (§ Angeles County Los are contested. A reflecting percentage statistic of temporary conservatorship petitions that contested, however, light sheds little on the percentage of detentions under section 5150 that ultimately filing result in the temporary of either a year-long or a petition. are the evaluation of conservatorship proceedings prompt primary purposes disabled, the for such who are gravely provision and treatment persons services, treatment, placement supervision of individualized persons (b), (c), subds. (§§5001, safety. protection public guarantee most evidence are frustrated if the best and 5352.6.) complete These goals trier of mental condition is withheld from the fact. the detainee’s concerning below, of relevant exclusion As dissenting opinion “[t]he recognized evidence, conservatee’s even if violation of gathered proposed privacy to come to any inhibit the of the trier of fact rights, ability could seriously condition, mental with rational conclusion about the conservatee’s actual of the rule to severe consequences.” Application potentially cases, unlike its to criminal would conservatorship proceedings, application courts, detriment of both the and the to the require potential public act, alike, disabled the existence not of a but of a detainee ignore single our has determined continuing grave disability Legislature state (Cf. should not 468 U.S. at Lopez-Mendoza, supra, p. be ignored. would L.Ed.2d at effect of rule in [noting deportation proceedings 791] aliens].) courts to of undocumented ignore continuing require presence cost for a deterrent effect that exists We cannot countenance this social Moreover, with because the official conduct associated only theory. “ search ‘traditions and was not so as offend the egregious [collective] ” (Griswold conscience of our Connecticut 381 U.S. v. people’ 510, 520, J.), (conc. of Goldberg, S.Ct. opn. 1678] v. U.S. L.Ed. quoting Snyder Massachusetts 677-678, 575]) (Rochin 54 S.Ct. 90 A.L.R. or to “shock the conscience” 183, 190, L.Ed. 72 S.Ct. California 1396]), A.L.R.2d in this case does not admission evidence disputed Martinez, (Cf. due concerns. In re 1 Cal.3d at implicate process pp. 650-651.) Under these circumstances we decline to extend the exclusionary rule to under the act. conservatorship proceedings
IV. Disposition the Court of concluded the Although Appeal act, under the it found the introduction conservatorship proceedings verdict and seized evidence had no adverse illegally jury’s impact affirmed the of the trial court Susan T. to be finding gravely judgment was disabled within the of the act. We conclude the evidence meaning and, basis, admitted on that affirm the of the Court of properly judgment Appeal.
Lucas, J., J., Kennard, J., Arabian, J., Baxter, J., C. and George, concurred.
1021 have no Like the I would MOSK, J., majority, and Concurring Dissenting. the the of an em- under facts that difficulty concluding, presented, entry of Health Susan of the Lake Mental into T.’s County Department ployee home to “take some as evidence” constituted search under the pictures because, I concur in Fourth Amendment. also the like the Court of judgment, I believe the admission of the evidence was harmless Appeal, photographic however, error. Unlike the I conclude that the majority, exclusionary the should under Lanterman-Petris- conservatorship proceedings Code, Act). (LPS (Welf. Short Act & Inst. 5000 seq.)1 et § ‘basic Amendment. . . is to the purpose safeguard “[T]he [the Fourth] and of individuals invasions privacy security arbitrary against govern ” 499, (1978) mental (Michigan officials.’ v. 436 U.S. L.Ed.2d Tyler 504 [56 486, 495, 1942], S.Ct. (1967) 98 Camara v. Court quoting Municipal 387 523, 930, 935, 1727].) U.S. 528 L.Ed.2d 87 S.Ct. Court [18 Supreme “ has for the emphasized ‘overriding of the home that respect sanctity ” has been embedded in our since origin traditions of the Republic.’ (Oliver 170, 214, 224, v. United (1984) States 466 U.S. L.Ed.2d [80 1735], 573, S.Ct. v. New York quoting Payton (1980) U.S. 601 [63 639, 659-660, L.Ed.2d 1371].) 100 S.Ct. Susan T. did not lose the right and when she privacy security was taken into the Lake custody by County Indeed, Sheriff under section 5150. the LPS Act expressly provides “[p]ersons with mental illness have same and legal rights responsibilities guaranteed all other the Federal persons by Constitution and laws Constitution laws State of California”—including right 5325.1, (§ (b); privacy. subd. see also Conservatorship (1979) 23 of Roulet 219, Cal.3d 425, 1].) P.2d rule has as its deterrence unlawful purpose govern mental intrusion into the right personal United States v. privacy. 338, 561, Calandra 571, 414 U.S. 613]; L.Ed.2d 94 S.Ct. 433, United States v. Janis fn. 35 3021].) 96 S.Ct. As the Court Supreme stressed first articulating rule, if evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment can be used in evidence against citizen accused of an offense “the protection Fourth Amendment his declaring right be secure such searches and against and, value, seizures no is of concerned, so far as those thus placed might as well be stricken from the (Weeks Constitution.” United States U.S. L.Ed. 34 S.Ct. it is most
Although commonly the context of applied criminal proceed- ings, our courts have rule in a civil variety
1All statutory references are the Welfare and Institutions Code.
1022 Coupe v. One Cadillac (See, 1960 e.g., People proceedings. administrative 290, forfei- 92, 396 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 706] [civil 62 Cal.2d 96-97 (1964) [41 638, (1979) 23 669 Cal.3d ture]; [153 v. Utilities Commission Goldin Public 802, Elder v. Commission hearing]; Utilities 592 P.2d Cal.Rptr. 289] [Public 246, (1966) 260 Cal.Rptr. 241 Cal.App.2d [50 Medical Examiners Bd. of license]; v. Moore People medical to revoke 304] [administrative 800, 800], 674, 446 P.2d overruled Cal.2d 682 (1968) Cal.Rptr. 69 [72 630, (1977) 637 Cal.Rptr. Thomas 19 Cal.3d v. People other grounds, addicts]; see 594, for commitment narcotic proceedings [civil 228] LaFave, 1987) 1.7(e), 158-159 (2d & Seizure ed. pp. Search also § Trade rule in Federal exclusionary (LaFave) [citing cases applying and Commission Exchange proceedings, Securities Commission hearings, Health Administration proceedings, proceedings and Occupational Safety Commission, Board Labor Relations Public National before the Utilities and administrative proceedings].) and other civil hearings, cases, courts rule in civil In to considering apply whether 681; Moore, 69 Cal.2d at People v. balancing test. 175, 210, State 11 Cal.3d 227-228 Emslie v. Bar 1032, 991]; L.Ed.2d (1984) 468 U.S. INS v. Lopez-Mendoza P.2d concern; are of Three considerations particular S.Ct. involved, the extent of for the individual the consequences magnitude seizures, potential which exclusion would deter searches illegal of factors weighs of the rule. I believe the balance these social cost applying to LPS conserva- favor applying unequivocally torship proceedings. Conservatees
A. Potential Magnitude Consequences for under not conservatorship a criminal Although proceeding, v. (Humphrey LPS Act in “a massive curtailment may liberty” result 394, 402, 1048]) as S.Ct. U.S. Cady criminal As Justice Brennan empha severe as that faced defendant.2 sized, are in mental not only deprived incarcerated “[p]ersons hospitals friends, and commu their are also family, physical they deprived liberty, live in surroundings Institutionalized mental must unnatural nity. patients are under the and detailed control of strangers. subject continuous They unwarranted, which, their right violate may intrusive treatment if especially authority to establishing may grant the conservatorship 2The court order conservator (a)) (§ conservatee facility require subd. place the conservatee in a mental (b)). may be (§ year An lasts for one but undergo treatment subd. LPS 5361.) succeeding one-year periods. (§ reestablished . . . confined mental persons .... Furthermore integrity to bodily and, abnormal confinement as sick and during institutions stigmatized cases, (Parham J.R. even after release.” some *17 101, 133-134, (conc. S.Ct. & dis. of opn. 626-627 L.Ed.2d 99 2493] [61 Brennan, omitted.) J.), fn. illness, confinement for mental whether civil or
Because involuntary
criminal,
we have extended
involves a loss of
and substantial
liberty
stigma,
conservatees as to criminal
of the same
many
potential
protections
Thus,
have
that the facts
confinement be
triggering
defendants.
we
required
to a unanimous
a reasonable doubt.
jury beyond
(Conservatorship
proved
219;
Roulet,
(1980)
23
28
Cal.3d
Cal.3d
supra,
Conservatorship of Hofferber
161,
854,
836].)
616 P.2d
conser
Cal.Rptr.
Similarly, proposed
[167
evidence,
vatee has the
to confront witnesses and to introduce
and the
right
(Conservator
if
counsel and to free
right
appointed
transcripts
indigent.
542,
262];
(1984)
Baber
ship
Cal.App.3d
Cal.Rptr.
[200
Waltz
835,
(1985)
529].)
Zumwalt
Wende
Cal.App.3d
Cal.Rptr.
[213
839,
review
v. Wende
Moreover, the fact that are conservatorship proceedings designed pro tect rather than the conservatee does not detract from the punish serious curtailment of that results from a liberty under finding “grave disability” “ ‘ the LPS Act. for which the incarceration is “Regardless purposes the fact remains that it incarceration. The
imposed, rehabilitative goals admirable, but do not the drastic system they change nature of the ’ ” action that has been taken.” (Conservatorship of Roulet, 23 Cal.3d Breed v. Jones quoting fn. 12 346, 536, 95 S.Ct. In addition to the of indefinite possibility in a locked placement psychiatric the same facility—possibly used to facility house criminal defendants—a conservatee faces the loss of important legal contracts, rights vote, to enter privileges, including rights to refuse treatment, or consent to medical routine including medical treatment for conditions unrelated to the conservatee’s grave and the disability, privilege 5357.) a driver’s license. possessing (§
In Moore, case of analogous v. we People expressly rejected the argument that violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments should be condoned because (in commitment that case for involuntary narcotic addicts) was beneficent Moore, rather than v. punitive. (People supra, 69 682.) Cal.2d at We p. concluded that to hold obtained unconstitutionally evidence admissible in commitment would furnish an proceedings incentive to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures. we held Accordingly, that the narcotics addict applied (Ibid.) proceedings.
I can see no basis for principled Moore from the distinguishing present case. I am unpersuaded by majority’s attempt distinguish Moore on the ground of a imposition conservatorship does not on a depend or charged criminal act. Moore uncharged did not turn on the that narcotics possibility Instead, addict was engaged criminal we activity.
rule on the basis that civil involuntary commitment under section 3000 et “has some of the seq. features criminal pertinent case in view of the facts that the state is the defendant’s that the opponent, is proceeding commenced on , petition district . . . that the attorney defendant is entitled to be at the present and to hearing be counsel at all represented by , stages . . . that if he is unable to financially employ counsel he is entitled to appointed counsel . . . and that his is at liberty Moore, stake.” v. (People 69 Cal.2d supra, omitted.) at citations p. Each of these with other features features—along to crim- analogous discussed, inal proceedings ante—is in LPS present hear- conservatorship Thus, ings. under the LPS Act a be taken person into may custody by officer or police health officer designated cause probable (§5150 §3100.6]); [cf. establishment of a initiated state, with the conservatorship proceedings district being brought by (§5114 3100]); attorney conservatees potential [cf. are entitled to ap- § counsel pointed (§5364 3104]) and free (Waltz [cf. appeal v. transcript § Zumwalt, Moore, People 69 Cal.2d supra, Cal.App.3d supra, [cf. 681]); and the conservatees is liberty potential at stake clearly (§5358 §3106]). [cf.
An additional
consideration
LPS
is the
high risk of error.
We have
stressed the uncertainties that surround
repeatedly
psychiatric
concomitant risk that a
will be
diagnoses
person
wrongly subjected
to the loss of
(Conserva
in commitment
liberty
reputation
proceedings.
Roulet,
219, 230;
23 Cal.3d
torship
v. Burnick
People
too,
courts,
Cal.3d
Federal
have
concern about the
risk of
commit
expressed
error
high
involuntary
ment
“The risk of error
proceedings.
in all mental health decisions is
substantial. Even when a standard
requires
specific finding
dangerous
ness, there is
risk of error. ...
great
As Chief Justice
wrote in his
Burger
in O’Connor
concurring opinion
v. Donaldson
..
.
can be little
‘[t]here
debate
“the
responsible
regarding
uncertainty
this field and
diagnosis
’ ”
the tentativeness of
(Doe
professional judgment.”
(C.D.Cal.
v. Gallinot
1979)
affd.
F.Supp.
(9th
1981),
In People I Professor quoted Wigmore’s observation that mental condition of one [t]he whose mind is so as to deranged require for imprisonment his own and others’ is indeed good But the mental pitiable. attitude of one who is found falsely insane and to life relegated imprison- ment is beyond No conception. greater can be committed in the cruelty name ” (14 law.’ Mosk, Cal.3d at pp. J.), 309-310 (opn. by quoting (Chadboum Wigmore Evidence 1974) rev. 201).) That obser- p. § vation remains apt efforts despite to include by Legislature safe- guards individuals subjected to commitment involuntary proceedings under the Rosenhan, LPS Act. also On Sane Being in Insane Places 379, 382-384; 13 Santa Morris, Clara L.Rev. Conservatorship for “Gravely Disabled”: Nondeclaration Nonindependence California’s 15 San L.Rev. Diego 201.) below,
As the Court of held Appeal the subjective nature of the criteria to the pertinent decision to begin commitment as well as the procedure, between mental disorder and legal incompetence, relationship uncertain decision to conduct a search that the administrative increase the possibility . or or result from or . . “caprice personal political spite” bemay misguided 1708, 1713, L.Ed.2d 80 S.Ct. (1960) (Eaton v. Price (See Abel v. United 1463]) for a criminal investigation. or be subterfuge 668, 686-687, 80 S.Ct. (1960) 362 U.S. 239-240 States Thus, rule EPS Act exclusionary conservatorship application intrusions on that would deter governmental personal privacy proceedings as the activities the rule is exclusionary designed be as pernicious may just to deter in criminal cases. Deterrence
B. the state should not rule is based on the principle exclusionary from its own evidence obtained unconstitutional using profit wrong Bar, 210, 226-227.) (Emslie Accordingly, methods. v. State Cal.3d supra, whether the rule should determining consideration key searches extent to which exclusion would deter unconstitutional is the (Ibid.) The conclude that the deterrent effect of majority and seizures. in EPS Act cases is merely applying I theoretical. disagree. most when “the
The deterrence for exclusion is argument compelling function and investi- administrative has an agency question investigative in the for the of that gative agency illegal activity personnel participated information to administrative providing support purpose Here, LaFave, (1 omitted.) fn. against suspect.” *20 conducted the search for same mental health officials who ordered and (the fruits of the search evidence in Susan T.’s home to use the sought Indeed, under the EPS at the EPS photographs) conservatorship proceedings. Act, are to act as evidence- mental health officials statutorily required The (§5150.) and witnesses the conservatee. gatherers against prospective in Act deterrent effect of rule this and other EPS exclusionary applying If officials would thus be direct. mental health conservatorship proceedings will know that evidence obtained searches be excluded conser- illegal will have a disincentive to vatorship proceedings, they strong conducting searches without a warrant. obtaining concede that the deterrent effect of the rule is at its greatest majority here,
when, that effected the search is the as is true the government agency its search at trial. They same that seeks to introduce fruits of agency however, surmise, in a that use of evidence conservatorship precluding have little or no deterrent effect on a mental might health worker interim interested treatment under the act under the securing or 14-day 5250, 5270.15), (§§ certifications as to which the 30-day rule exclusionary not From this conclude that the deterrence may apply. majority value would be limited. I disagree.
Unlike on which the Lopez-Mendoza, this is not a majority rely, situation in which the weakens the deterrent rarity challenges proceedings effect (INS Indeed, 1032.) of the rule. Lopez-Mendoza, supra, the rate of contested conservatorship hearings substantial. apparently Certainly, if, even as the some mental majority conjecture, health workers be may detainee, interested interim securing only treatment for a there is no reason to conclude that are so conservatorship unusual that proceedings mental health workers would as a rule be general heedless of the privacy of detainees rights regardless of the rule. exclusionary also reason that the majority deterrent value of the exclu- applying rule sionary is weakened in trials conservatorship because that stage commitment involuntary the “most relevant” process evidence of disabil- will be ity derived from the detainee I herself. A Again, disagree. detainee’s conditions living taken prior being into custody clearly pertinent disabled,” determination he i.e., or she is “unable to “gravely provide for his or her food, basic needs for personal or clothing, (§ shelter.” case, subd. (h)(1)(A).) In cumulative, this evidence was photographic but it was “relevant” undoubtedly and the motion to was suppress vigorously opposed by Lake respondent view, Mental County Health In Department. my there is substantial reason to conclude that the deterrent effect of applying real, in cases such as this would be and not merely theoretical.
C. Social Costs The social costs of applying rule to LPS are minimal. Once aware of the warrant requirement, depart- *21 ment will employees have a significant incentive to the respect privacy rights detainees.3 There is no reason to think that important evidence will be lost or if destroyed mental health authorities are to required obtain 3Indeed, the San Francisco Public Defender observed that searches like the one at issue here infrequent have been you “because it is get clear that need a warrant to into a house. To dog you even seize a need an Exclusionary Applies (Ziegler, administrative Rule warrant.” Commitment, Daily San Francisco (Aug. 1993) 1.) Journal p. at to be thought gravely the home of a entering person before a warrant disabled.4 conducted in violation of the event that a search is
In the unusual fact would be it is that the trier of unlikely constitutional requirement, a rational conclusion about reaching potential seriously hampered conclusion, condition. to the conservatee’s mental Contrary majority’s be court rule would not required ignore applying have state The trier of fact will continuing grave disability. existence of a evidence the mental health profession- to hear opportunity presented by and treatment of als who evaluations mandatory psychiatric administered hold under conservatee 72-hour (§ during proposed [evaluation treatment]; 5150]; 5251 et for intensive seq. [con- [certification § § § receives, treatment]). The court also enter may finement for additional act, evidence, which written mandated by into comprehensive report medical, contain “all relevant of the aspects person’s psychological, must condition, financial, and social and information obtained vocational family, members, friends, close social worker or principal from the person’s family Moreover, demonstrates, 5354.) as this case evidence also (§ may therapist.” witnesses, be other including family neighbors. presented by percipient testify conservatee also be at the conservator- may required The proposed Baber, (See at supra, trial. ship Conservatorship Cal.App.3d conservatee cannot refuse at [proposed testify p. proceeding].)
Thus, LPS Act reduces the risk that a disabled itself gravely person Indeed, will be without of a as the conservatorship. released imposition observe, the a detainee remains in treatment under the longer majority act, interim commitment the less need the involuntary provisions will have to on extrinsic evidence to demonstrate department rely grave LPS Act involve a because disability. Precisely conservatorship proceedings act, state of and not a the social costs of single continuing grave disability health with the limits on mental workers constitutional requiring comply Moreover, the invasion of are minimized. unlike criminal personal privacy free, in which the risk is that a will be set in the guilty person LPS Act context a released can be detained if she exhibits new person again (See behavior as a result of a mental disorder. demonstrating grave disability Baber, 549-550 Conservatorship Cal.App.3d pp. [double doctrine in LPS jeopardy inapplicable conservatorship proceedings].) cases, only existing application 4To avoid harm in rule could be [heightened prospectively. Conservatorship of Roulet, supra, 23 Cal.3d at fn. 18 proof applied prospectively].) burden of *22 Act, citizens, LPS like all other has a detained under the A person in the of her home. sanctity Although of privacy expectation reasonable beneficent, the loss of liberty reputation of the LPS Act are goals benefits, I the costs and can see no basis grave. Weighing conservatee is unreasonable searches and guarantees against the fundamental ignoring conservatees. investigations potential Accordingly, seizures conducting rule to LPS Act conservatorship proceedings. I would