People v. Robert B.People v. Robert B.
Opinion
The juvenile court sustained a supplemental petition against Robert B., a minor, alleging that a previous disposition by the court had not been effective in his rehabilitation (
I
Facts
Oscar Cairo, a сampus security officer at California High School, observed a group of five students, including Robert, near the science building on a school morning. He saw money being exchanged between two other students in the group. Because of past confrontations with Robert and others in that group involving possession of marijuana and being under the influence of marijuana, the officer decided to detain these students. He asked them to follow him to the office. As they proceeded through the hallway, he observed Robert pull a pack of cigarettes out of his right pocket and place it inside the sleeve of his jacket. Once inside the vice principal’s *768 office, the students were asked to empty their pockets. A Marlboro cigarette box was recovered from Robert; the security officer opened the box and found 13 handrolled cigarettes inside. Subsequent testing established that the leafy substance inside the cigarettes was marijuana.
Robert had previously been declared a ward of the court (
II
Disclosure of Informant
Minor contends he was denied a fair hearing because the court denied his motion for disclosure of informant. The motion was based on the grounds that the informant was a material witness, and that he рrovided information relative to reasonable cause to arrest or search and was not a reliable informant. Declaration of minor’s attorney alleged her belief that the informant gave to Mr. Cairo, the security guard, information that the minor was selling or offering to sell marijuana on the sсhool campus; that Cairo knew this informant to have been involved in narcotics possession or arrests himself; and that the informant provided information that was used as the basis for reasonable cause to detain, search and arrest the minor. She incorporated by reference the police reports prepared in this matter.
The assertion that the information provided by the informant was relied upon by Mr. Cairo for reasonable cause to detain, search and arrest the minor was quickly dispelled at the hearing on the motion. Mr. Cairo testified that a day or two before this incident he had received information from an anonymous person about Robert and other students, and that he reported the information to the vice principal, who told him to “keep an
*769
eye on the kids.” However, Cairo stated he did not rely on any information received from anyone elsе for the purpose of detaining Robert. That information was not in his mind at all when he approached Robert that morning because he saw suspicious activities going on by the science building. His decision to detain Robert was based on his own personal observations and his prior dealings with Robert. We find the trial court’s factual determination that Mr. Cairo did not rely on the informer’s information in deciding to detain Robert is supported by substantial evidence; that is the limit of our review of the circumstances known or apparent to Mr. Cairo at the time of the detention.
(People
v.
Leyba
(1981)
As to the claim that the informer would be a material witness, “a defendant seeking to discover the identity of an informant bears the burden of demonstrating that, ‘in view of the evidence, the informer would be a material witness on the issue of guilt and nondisclosure of his identity would deprive the defendant of a fair trial. ’ [Citations.] That burden is discharged, however, when defendant demonstrates a reasonable possibility that the anonymous informant whose identity is sought could give evidence on the issue of guilt which might result in defendant’s exonеration.”
(People
v.
Garcia
(1967)
Here the information was one or two days old, and the security guard didn’t even remember what that information was. Although defense counsel argued that the informer might have seen Robert hand the cigarette box to someone else that morning, and that someone else might have put the marijuana in the box, or the informer could have had knowledge of who else had possession of the box and what was in the box, there was absolutely
*770
no showing that thе informer had any contact with Robert that day, or that the informer was either a witness to or participant in the suspicious incident by the science building. A defendant’s showing must encompass more than speculation.
(People
v.
Green
(1981)
Ill
Detention by School Security Guard
Appellant contends the schоol security guard acted without reasonable cause to detain him. As a school security agent, Mr. Cairo had the authority to prevent violations of the law (Ed. Code, § 39671;
The concern of security agents in maintaining the security of school personnel and pupils permits more stringent regulation and authority over school children than would be allowеd over adults.
(In re Guillermo M., supra,
IV
Exclusion of Evidence
Appellant next contends the trial court erroneously denied his motion to exclude the contraband as the search and seizure were in violation of his constitutional rights. Article I, section 28, subdivision (d) of the California Constitution has abrogated a defendant’s right to object to and suppress evidence seized in violation of the California, but not the federal, Constitution.
(In re Lance W.
(1985)
Thе standards governing search of a student by a school official were recently set forth in
New Jersey
v.
T. L. O.
(1985) 469 U.S. —, — [
Applying these guidelines to the facts of this case, we find the search conducted here was both justified at its inception and reasonable in its scope. Mr. Cairo detained Robert and the others in the group because *772 he suspected they might be in possession of a controlled substance. While Robert was walking to the office as part of the initial detention, Mr. Cairo saw him remove a cigarette box from his pocket and place it inside his jacket sleeve. This action, which could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to hide the box, coupled with Mr. Cairo’s suspicion that Robert was in possession of a controlled substance, provided adequate justification for inception of the search. Mr. Cairo instructed Robert to empty his pockets, removed the cigarette box from Robert’s person, and opеned the box, wherein he found the 13 handrolled cigarettes. Inasmuch as Robert was suspected of possession of a controlled substance, it was reasonable to search his pockets and the cigarette box he had apparently attempted to hide. This was done in the vice principal’s office, in the presence of a second security guard. The record reveals no undue intrusion on the minor’s person or excessive invasion of his privacy which would render the scope of the search unreasonable under these circumstances. The court did not err in denying motiоn to exclude this evidence.
V
Chemical Test for Marijuana
There is no merit to Robert’s final contention that the prosecution failed to establish a foundation for admissibility of the scientific test used by the police officer to identify the contents of the handrolled cigarettes found in appellant’s possession. Evidencе of scientific tests is admissible when the technique has received general acceptance by recognized experts in the field; the determination of general acceptance is primarily a question of fact for the trial court, subject to an appellate court’s detеrmination that the trial court has not abused its discretion.
(People
v.
Marx
(1975)
Moreover, although Robert objected at trial to the expert qualifications of the police officer to perform and interpret the chemical test, a complaint not repeated in this appeal, he raised no objection to the general acceptance of the Duquenois-Levine test in the scientific community to establish that a substance is marijuana. “[Bjefore an appellate court will give consideration to an objection to evidence, the
specific ground
for its exclusion must have been clearly stated to the trial court. (
Disposition
The order is affirmed.
Thompson, J., and Johnson, J., concurred.