People v. Ross
162 Cal.App.4th 1184, 76 Cal. Rptr. 3d 477, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 690 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An arrestee who knowingly possesses a deadly weapon, is asked about it by officials upon entry to a jail, and denies possessing it, commits a sufficiently voluntary act to be found guilty of violating a statute prohibiting persons from knowingly bringing deadly weapons into a jail.
Facts:
- Respondent was arrested for assault with a knife.
- Police conducted an initial pat-down search of the respondent but did not find a weapon.
- Respondent was transported to the Santa Barbara County Jail.
- Upon arrival at the jail, an arresting officer asked respondent if she had any weapons on her person.
- Respondent denied having a weapon, answering "no."
- During the booking process inside the jail, another officer conducted a thorough search and discovered a knife hidden in the inseam of respondent's undergarments.
Procedural Posture:
- The People filed a two-count information against the respondent in the trial court.
- Count two of the information charged respondent with bringing a deadly weapon into a jail in violation of Penal Code § 4574(a).
- Respondent filed a motion in the trial court to set aside count two of the information.
- The trial court granted the respondent's motion, ruling that she had not voluntarily entered the jail.
- The People, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeal.
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 to jail, but who denies possessing a weapon when asked by officers, commit the crime of knowingly bringing a weapon into a jail under Penal Code § 4574(a) if a weapon is subsequently found on their person?
Opinions:
Majority - Yegan, J.
Yes. An arrestee who is involuntarily brought to jail but denies possessing a weapon when asked by officials has committed a sufficiently voluntary act to be guilty of knowingly bringing a weapon into a jail. The court reasoned that while the respondent had no choice about going to jail, she did have a choice about whether to bring the weapon into the jail. By lying to the booking officer about possessing the knife, she made a voluntary choice to enter the secure facility with the weapon. The court emphasized that the legislative intent of Penal Code § 4574 is to maintain jail safety by completely proscribing the introduction of deadly weapons. Allowing arrestees to lie and bring in weapons with impunity would create an absurd and dangerous result, contrary to the statute's purpose. The court distinguished this case from others involving drugs, noting that deadly weapons pose a significantly greater risk to jail security. Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination permits silence, but it does not confer a right to lie to law enforcement about a dangerous weapon during a legitimate safety inquiry.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'actus reus' or voluntary act requirement for crimes involving bringing contraband into a correctional facility. It establishes that an arrestee's lie or material omission, when given a clear opportunity to surrender a weapon, transforms the otherwise involuntary act of being brought to jail into a voluntary criminal act of introducing that weapon. This creates a strong precedent that prioritizes institutional safety over an arrestee's claim of involuntary conduct, placing the onus on the arrestee to be truthful during intake questioning. The ruling effectively forces an arrestee to choose between disclosing the weapon or facing an additional felony charge, thereby strengthening protections for correctional officers and inmates.
