Supreme Court Rejects Youth’s Appeal in Test of Truancy Questioning

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, the justices turned down an appeal from a 17-year-old Orange County youth who was stopped by police while walking in Newport Beach and was found to be carrying LSD under his jacket.

Balancing of Interests

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

California Chief Justice Malcolm 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 reason other than their youthful appearance.

It “permits police intrusion into the daily lives of thousands of people because they may appear 16 or 17 years old in the eyes of a particular officer,” the appeal said. “This decision would limit use and enjoyment of public places by persons exempt or excused from full-time education.”

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

California’s Education Code says young people between ages 6 and 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 the youth appeared nervous when they stopped him for questioning and he grabbed his chest. When they inquired further, they discovered the drugs.

Basis for Authority

But Lucas said in his opinion that police may use their added authority only for the purpose of enforcing the truancy laws. Because of some confusion over what police officers asked the youth when they stopped him, the state Supreme Court returned the matter to a Superior Court for further proceedings. (James D. vs. California, 87-930)

In another action in a California case, the high court rejected an appeal from a Sacramento television 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 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 was dismissed. (Branch vs. FCC, 87-628.)