Police Upheld on Stopping Suspected Truant Youths

Turning aside arguments that youths are being made into second-class citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court let stand a California high court ruling that allows police to stop and question teen-agers who are on the streets during school hours.

Without comment Monday, the justices turned down an appeal from a 17-year-old Fullerton youth, who was stopped by police while walking in Newport Beach one morning in 1983 and was found to be carrying LSD under his jacket.

The drug evidence was thrown out by a trial court because the officers had no legal basis for stopping the youth. But in October, the new, more conservative California Supreme Court rejected that conclusion.

Youth’s Interest Outweighed

California Chief Justice Malcolm M. Lucas said California’s interest in enforcing its compulsory schooling laws outweighs the youth’s interest in being free from police questioning.

In an appeal to the high court on behalf of “James D.,” Orange County public defenders said the ruling creates a “second-class citizenry” by giving police the authority to stop youths for no other reason than their youthful appearance.

Under existing U.S. Supreme Court standards, police may not stop a citizen for questioning without specific evidence that the person has broken a law or is about to break the law.

Those standards “make it virtually impossible” to identify truants, said John Conley, head of the juvenile branch of the Orange County district attorney’s office.

“Under current law an officer can’t stop and question a youngster unless he knows that individual is truant. And how would he know the youngster is truant unless he questions him?”

Conley, like several other county educators and law enforcement officials, praised the decision to let stand the state high court ruling regarding police questioning of suspected truants.

“The evidence is clear that some kids who are truant get mixed up in daytime crime--burglaries, thefts and vandalism,” Conley said. “This decision should help police control truant-related crime.”

‘Helps Arm Us’ Against Truants

Newport Beach Police Officer Bob Oakley agreed: “This is a positive step for law enforcement. This helps arm us when dealing with truants.”

Others, like Bill Ybarra, coordinator of student services for the county Department of Education, believe that the ruling may also stem the dropout rate.

Ybarra said that “truancy is the first step” to dropping out of school for many students.

“If you can keep the student off the street and in class you have a chance of getting him to finish school,” said Ybarra, a former high school dean who studies attendance matters, among other things, for the county.

“In California, police will now have the power to stop and ask reasonable questions during school hours of students who are wandering away from campus,” he said.

California’s Education Code says youngsters ages 6 to 16 must be enrolled in school. Ironically, “James D.” was a high school graduate and could have escaped further trouble if he had simply told officers that fact.

Officers said that the youth appeared nervous when they stopped him for questioning and that he grabbed his chest. When they inquired further, they discovered the drugs.

Lucas wrote for the majority that police may use their added authority only to enforce the truancy laws. Because of some confusion over what police officers asked “James D.” when they stopped him, the state Supreme Court returned the matter to a Superior Court for further proceedings (James D. vs. California, 87-930).

Meanwhile, in another action in a California case, the high court rejected an appeal from a Sacramento TV news reporter who wanted to run for public office without his station being required to offer “equal time” on the air to his opponent.

In 1984, reporter William Branch wanted to run for the town council in Loomis but dropped out of the race because of his uncertainty over the equal-time requirement.

Both the Federal Communications Commission and a federal appeals court concluded that his station would have had to offer equal time to his opponent.

In their high court petition, attorneys contended that the law violates the First Amendment rights of Branch and the station, but the appeal of Branch vs. FCC, 87-628, was dismissed.