People v. Low
232 P.3d 635, 110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 640, 49 Cal. 4th 372 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute prohibiting any person from knowingly bringing a controlled substance into a jail applies to an arrestee who is involuntarily brought into the facility. The act of 'bringing' the substance occurs even if the entry is compelled, so long as the defendant had the opportunity to divest themself of the contraband before entering.
Facts:
- Tony Richard Low was arrested for driving a stolen vehicle.
- An officer conducted a patdown search of Low at the scene of the arrest but found no weapons or contraband.
- While being transported to jail, Low had a small packet of methamphetamine hidden in his sock.
- Outside the jail entrance, the arresting officer, Officer Wahl, explicitly warned Low that it was illegal to bring controlled substances into the facility.
- When asked, Low denied having any drugs in his possession.
- During a booking search inside the jail, officers discovered the packet of methamphetamine tucked into Low's sock.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the trial court convicted Tony Richard Low of unlawfully driving a vehicle and of bringing a controlled substance into a jail in violation of Penal Code section 4573.
- Low filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that section 4573 did not apply to him because his entry into the jail was involuntary and that prosecution violated his Fifth Amendment rights.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial.
- Low appealed the conviction to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting Low's statutory and constitutional arguments.
- The Supreme Court of California granted Low's petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an arrestee who is involuntarily brought into a jail, while knowingly possessing a controlled substance, violate a statute that prohibits 'any person' from 'knowingly bring[ing]' a controlled substance into the facility?
Opinions:
Majority - Baxter, J.
Yes. An arrestee who is involuntarily brought into a jail while knowingly possessing a controlled substance violates a statute prohibiting 'any person' from 'knowingly bring[ing]' a controlled substance into the facility. The court reasoned that the statute's plain language applies to 'any person,' which includes arrestees and inmates, not just non-inmate smugglers. The act of 'bringing' contraband occurs when a person enters a facility with the item on their person, regardless of whether their entry is voluntary, especially when given a clear opportunity to dispose of it. The required mental state, 'knowingly,' only requires that the person be aware of the substance's presence and its narcotic character; it does not require a specific intent to smuggle. Furthermore, prosecuting under this statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because the crime is the non-testimonial act of entering the jail with drugs, not a punishment for refusing to confess to possession beforehand.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the element of 'bringing' contraband into a penal institution does not require voluntary entry. It solidifies a strict liability approach for the act of entry itself, focusing instead on the defendant's knowing possession of the contraband and the opportunity to divest. The ruling reinforces the legislative goal of keeping drugs and weapons out of correctional facilities by placing the onus on arrestees to disclose or abandon contraband before entry, thereby closing a potential loophole defendants might use by claiming their presence was involuntary. This interpretation will likely be applied to similar statutes involving bringing other types of contraband into secure facilities, strengthening prosecutors' ability to charge individuals found with hidden items during booking searches.
