Opinion ID: 1421847
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Construction of Section 28, Subdivision (d)

Text: The majority hold that section 28, subdivision (d), of article I of the Constitution (hereinafter section 28(d)), adopted as part of Proposition 8, mandates obedience by California courts to the federal standard. The section provides in pertinent part: Except as provided by statute hereafter enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership in each house of the Legislature, relevant evidence shall not be excluded in any criminal proceeding. ... Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory rule of evidence relating to privilege or hearsay, or Evidence Code, Sections 352, 782 or 1103. Nothing in this section shall affect any existing statutory or constitutional right of the press. (Italics added.) [2] A constitutional amendment is to be construed in the same manner as a statute. ( Amador Valley Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization (1978) 22 Cal.3d 208, 245 [149 Cal. Rptr. 239]; Winchester v. Mabury (1898) 122 Cal. 522, 527 [55 P. 393]; McMillan v. Siemon (1940) 36 Cal. App.2d 721, 726 [98 P.2d 790].) The amendment must receive a liberal, practical common-sense construction.... [It] should be construed in accordance with the natural and ordinary meaning of its words. ( Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 245; In re Quinn (1973) 35 Cal. App.3d 473, 482 [110 Cal. Rptr. 881].) Equally important, however, is the presumption against implied repeal of statutes and constitutional provisions; courts must undertake to reconcile potential conflicts whenever they arise. ( In re Thierry S. (1977) 19 Cal.3d 727, 744 [139 Cal. Rptr. 708, 566 P.2d 610]; Warne v. Harkness (1963) 60 Cal.2d 579, 587-588 [35 Cal. Rptr. 601, 387 P.2d 377]; Cannon v. American Hydrocarbon Corp. (1970) 4 Cal. App.3d 639, 648 [84 Cal. Rptr. 575].) Further, when the drafters of an enactment use language that has previously been judicially construed, they are presumed to use it in the sense placed on it by the courts. ( Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 734 [180 Cal. Rptr. 496, 640 P.2d 115, 30 A.L.R.4th 1161]; Buchwald v. Katz (1972) 8 Cal.3d 493, 502 [105 Cal. Rptr. 368, 503 P.2d 1376].) Also, it is well recognized that The literal language of enactments may be disregarded to avoid absurd results and to fulfill the apparent intent of the framers. ( Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 245.) The majority's interpretation of section 28(d) results in an implied repeal of a fundamental aspect of article I, section 24, of the Constitution, ignores judicial precedent construing the language used by the drafters of section 28(d), and produces absurd results in light of the avowed purposes of Proposition 8.
The people of this state have the power to repeal provisions of the Constitution by voting on an initiative or a legislative proposal. (Const., art. XVIII, §§ 1, 3.) Yet that power must be unambiguously exercised. Even where one of two inconsistent [enactments] is later than the other and ... does not purport to continue the other in operation, it is settled that there is a presumption against repeal by implication, that to overcome the presumption the two acts must be irreconcilable, clearly repugnant, and so inconsistent as to prevent their concurrent operation, and that the courts are bound to maintain the integrity of both [enactments] if they may stand together. ( Warne v. Harkness, supra, 60 Cal.2d 579, 587-588; accord, In re Thierry S., supra, 19 Cal.3d 727, 744; County of Placer v. Aetna Casualty etc. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 182, 188-189 [323 P.2d 753].) [3] The majority's reading of section 28(d) results in a substantial repeal of article I, section 24, and article I, section 13, of the Constitution. Section 24 reads in pertinent part: Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Section 13 protects the people of this state from unreasonable searches and seizures. In order to reconcile section 28(d) with section 24 and section 13, it is necessary to examine the history and meaning of the latter two provisions. It is a basic premise of constitutional law that the states may adopt search and seizure rules affording greater protection to their citizens than is required by the United States Constitution. ( Alderman v. United States (1969) 394 U.S. 165, 175 [22 L.Ed.2d 176, 187-188, 89 S.Ct. 961]; Cooper v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 58, 62 [17 L.Ed.2d 730, 734, 87 S.Ct. 788].) [T]he California Constitution is, and always has been, a document of independent force. Any other result would contradict not only the most fundamental principles of federalism but also the historic bases of state charters. ( People v. Brisendine (1975) 13 Cal.3d 528, 549-550 [119 Cal. Rptr. 315, 531 P.2d 1099].) Thus article I, section 13, of the Constitution has a life of its own, separate from the jurisprudence surrounding the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. As we stated in Brisendine ( id. at pp. 550-551), in determining that California citizens are entitled to greater protection under the California Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures than that required by the United States Constitution, we are embarking on no revolutionary course. Rather we are simply reaffirming a basic principle of federalism  that the nation as a whole is composed of distinct geographical and political entities bound together by a fundamental federal law but nonetheless independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of their citizens. It was to codify this fundamental principle that the people of California adopted section 24 at the November 1974 General Election. The ballot pamphlet distributed to all voters explained that section 24 clarifies existing law by providing, inter alia, that rights guaranteed by the State Constitution are not dependent on those guaranteed by the federal Constitution. (Ballot Pamp., Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 5, 1974), analysis by Legislative Analyst, p. 26.) The measure was overwhelmingly approved by 70.5 percent of the voters. That the exclusionary rule and the principle of vicarious standing are fundamental aspects of California's constitutional law cannot be doubted. In People v. Reeves (1964) 61 Cal.2d 268 [38 Cal. Rptr. 1, 391 P.2d 393], the defendant was able to challenge the constitutionality of the arrest and search of a third party. ( Id. at p. 274.) We held that The rule that requires a reversal where incriminatory evidence has been secured by means of an illegal search is not a mere technical rule of evidence. It is based on the fundamental concept that such a rule is required in order to give substance to the rights conferred by the provisions of our federal and state Constitutions prohibiting such seizures. ( Id. at p. 275, italics added.) And in Kaplan v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.3d 150, 161, we observed that this court has repeatedly reaffirmed Martin and its raison d'etre as a necessary adjunct to Cahan. As in People v. Brisendine, supra, 13 Cal.3d 528, 551, The ultimate confirmation of our conclusion occurred, finally, when the people adopted article I, section 24, of the California Constitution at the November 1974 election.... [4] In light of this history I cannot accept the argument that such a firmly established and fundamental rule, incorporated in section 13 and section 24 as a basic provision of California constitutional law, was impliedly overruled by the broad, nonspecific language of Proposition 8. Nothing on the face of section 28(d) or the ballot materials assertedly explaining it explicitly mentions section 24, section 13, or the exclusionary rule. Yet it is evident that the drafters knew very well how to repeal specific portions of the Constitution if they wished to do so: e.g., section 2 of Proposition 8 expressly deletes article I, section 12, of the Constitution, which afforded most accused persons the right to be released on bail while awaiting trial. In stark contrast is the vague and general language of section 28(d) and the ballot information interpreting it. The majority direct us to the analysis by the Legislative Analyst contained in the voter pamphlet. The portion relating to section 28(d) declares in part, Under current law, certain evidence is not permitted to be presented in a criminal trial or hearing. For example, evidence obtained through ... unlawful searches of persons or property, cannot be used in court. This measure generally would allow most relevant evidence to be presented in criminal cases.... The measure could not affect federal restrictions on the use of evidence. (Ballot Pamp., Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Primary Elec. (June 8, 1982) p. 32, italics in original (hereafter Ballot Pamp.).) But to say that most evidence generally would be allowed to be presented is hardly a clear mandate that all California exclusionary rules are to be abrogated. And the statement regarding the continued vitality of federal exclusionary rules does not necessarily imply the demise of all state rules. Nowhere does the Legislative Analyst state, as the majority claim, that unlawfully seized evidence would become admissible except to the extent that the federal Constitution forbids its use. ( Ante, at p. 886.) Indeed, that there is no such statement anywhere in the ballot materials indicates that the majority's interpretation of section 28(d) is not compelled. As the majority note, section 28(d) has been described as the most ambiguous and least understood section of Proposition 8. (Assem. Com. on Crim. Justice, Analysis of Prop. 8, Mar. 24, 1982, p. 10.) ( Ante, at p. 886, fn. 6.) [5] The vague, nonspecific language of section 28(d) simply does not repeal the clear mandate of section 24 or the exclusionary rules embodied therein. [6]
The result I reach is mandated by a further principle of statutory and constitutional construction: `where the legislature uses terms already judicially construed, the presumption is almost irresistible that it used them in the precise and technical sense which had been placed upon them by the courts.' ( People v. Curtis (1969) 70 Cal.2d 347, 355 [74 Cal. Rptr. 713, 450 P.2d 33], quoting from City of Long Beach v. Marshall (1938) 11 Cal.2d 609, 620 [82 P.2d 362]; accord, Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson, supra, 30 Cal.3d 721, 734; In re Jeanice D. (1980) 28 Cal.3d 210, 216 [168 Cal. Rptr. 455, 617 P.2d 1087]; Buchwald v. Katz, supra, 8 Cal.3d 493, 502.) Thus we must presume that the drafters were aware of judicial decisions construing the language used in section 28(d), and that they intended a construction consistent with those decisions. ( Palos Verdes Faculty Assn. v. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified Sch. Dist. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 650, 659 [147 Cal. Rptr. 359, 580 P.2d 1155]; Stafford v. Realty Bond Service Corp. (1952) 39 Cal.2d 797, 805 [249 P.2d 241].) In Kaplan v. Superior Court, supra, 6 Cal.3d 150, we addressed a challenge substantially similar to that presented here. In Kaplan, a police officer had seen a car speeding. As he turned on his red light to signal the driver to stop, the officer observed a passenger hide something in his coat from under the front seat. On the theory that the something was a weapon, the officer ordered the passenger from the car and subjected him to a patdown search. In the course of the search, the officer felt a lump he was pretty sure ... was not a weapon, but having an idea it was pills, placed the passenger under arrest and reached inside his shirt pocket. The lump consisted of a number of LSD tablets in a plastic bag. In exchange for a promise of immunity, the passenger testified that the defendant, another passenger, had sold him the pills. Under Martin the defendant would have had standing to challenge the search pursuant to the vicarious exclusionary rule; under federal law he would not. ( Alderman v. United States, supra, 394 U.S. 165, 171-176 [22 L.Ed.2d 176, 185-188].) All parties conceded that the search was unlawful. The issue was whether then newly enacted Evidence Code section 351, stating that Except as otherwise provided by statute, all relevant evidence is admissible, repealed the Martin rule. We held that it did not. After reviewing the history of the vicarious standing rule, and emphasizing how deeply embedded it was in the law of California, we concluded that `We do not believe that such a firmly established and fundamental rule of the criminal law of years' standing was overruled by any vague and indecisive provision in the Evidence Code  nor do we believe that the Legislature so intended.' (6 Cal.3d at p. 161, quoting People v. Starr (1970) 11 Cal. App.3d 574, 583 [89 Cal. Rptr. 906].) The Attorney General argues that Kaplan is distinguishable because our holding there was assertedly based on legislative intent. Section 351 was part of a massive revision of California evidence law into an Evidence Code that would leave some rules intact while overhauling others. We stressed that whenever the drafters meant to repeal or change existing law, they spelled out in their official comments the precise consequences of their action and the statutes or case law it affected. ( Id. at p. 158.) We concluded that In view of the commission's painstaking analysis of many evidentiary rules that are of less importance and notoriety than Martin, its deafening silence on this point cannot be deemed the product of oversight. It can only mean the commission did not intend  and the code therefore does not accomplish  a change in the Martin rule. ( Id. at p. 159.) The Attorney General's reasoning that Kaplan is inapposite misses the point. It is not how we reached our conclusion in Kaplan that is decisive in the case at bar; the determinative factor for purposes of statutory construction is that we did reach that conclusion  i.e., that the language used was incapable of effecting the result in question. [7] In section 28(d) the drafters of Proposition 8 chose to use language that is the mirror image of Evidence Code section 351: while section 351 provides that all relevant evidence is admissible, section 28(d) states that relevant evidence shall not be excluded. Accordingly, I believe we are compelled to interpret section 28(d) in light of the Kaplan decision, and we must assume that the framers of the section chose its language with knowledge of Kaplan. In light of the deafening silence of a contrary intent, as discussed above, it must therefore be concluded that they did not intend section 28(d) to abrogate the rule of vicarious standing or other independent state grounds for the exclusion of evidence.
One of the cardinal principles of statutory and constitutional construction is that an enactment must be read to avoid absurd results and to fulfill the intent of the framers. ( Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 245.) The majority's interpretation of section 28(d) would lead to absurd results counter to the stated purposes of Proposition 8. Further, I cannot agree that the voters clearly intended to subordinate California's law of exclusion to the federal standard. The purpose of Proposition 8 is set forth in its section 3, now article I, section 28, subdivision (a), of the Constitution. [8] That section states in part that Proposition 8 is a bill of rights for victims of crime, including safeguards in the criminal justice system to fully protect those rights.... The section goes on to proclaim that The rights of victims pervade the criminal justice system, encompassing ... the ... basic expectation that persons who commit felonious acts causing injury to innocent victims will be appropriately detained in custody, tried by the courts, and sufficiently punished so that the public safety is protected.... The avowed purpose of Proposition 8 is thus to implement safeguards for victims of crimes and to deal more harshly with violent criminals. If we were to accept the majority's reading of section 28(d), absurd results manifestly counter to the purposes of Proposition 8 would follow. For example, Evidence Code section 352.1, which prevents the introduction into open court of a rape victim's address and telephone number, would be repealed. A victim who testified at the trial could have his religious beliefs introduced and challenged in court, without the protective shield of Evidence Code section 789. Evidence Code section 786 would be repealed, permitting a general attack on the character of a victim-witness apart from his reputation for honesty. Evidence Code section 787 would be repealed, allowing defense counsel [to] attack the credibility of police officers, victims and other prosecution witnesses with any relevant evidence of specific instances of bad conduct. Were they expelled from school for cheating? A thorough investigation of the witness' background will turn up numerous possibilities. (Uelmen, Gann's Bonanza for Defense Counsel, in Criminal Practice after Proposition 8 (Cont.Ed.Bar 1982) p. 7.) Thus the majority's interpretation of section 28(d) would violate subdivision (a) of section 28 by removing safeguards that California law gives to victims. I cannot believe that such was the will of the voters. [9] To give meaning to the language of a constitutional provision created by initiative, courts may look to the ballot summary and analysis and arguments presented to the electorate. ( Amador Valley, supra, 22 Cal.3d at pp. 245-246.) However, as I explained above, nothing in the voter pamphlet specifies that Proposition 8 repeals all independent California grounds for the exclusion of evidence in criminal trials. Additionally, in the case of complex initiative measures it is often difficult to rely on ballot information to discern voter intent: There are two factors which greatly inhibit [the electorate's] thoughtful consideration of the issues presented by all but the most simple initiative: the complexity of the ballot measure and the nature of the political campaign waged in its behalf. (Note, The California Initiative Process: A Suggestion for Reform (1975) 48 So.Cal.L.Rev. 922, 934.) When a ballot proposal is lengthy only the most diligent voter [will] wade through [it] ( id. at p. 935), the result being a superficial intellectual exercise that leaves voters vulnerable to emotional  and perhaps misleading  advertising. ( Id. at p. 936.) Proposition 8 is undeniably long and complex: it adds one section containing seven subdivisions to the Constitution, and repeals one section thereof; it also adds five sections to the Penal Code and three more to the Welfare and Institutions Code. Another problem arises when a ballot measure affects many different rules of law. Even if arguendo Proposition 8 is not violative of the one-subject rule for the purpose of qualifying the whole measure for the ballot ( Brosnahan v. Brown, supra, 32 Cal.3d 236, 252-253, but see pp. 262-299), it remains speculative to rely on voter intent as it relates to any one provision. [A] proposition may contain 20 good features, but have one bad one secreted among the 20 good ones. The busy voter does not have the time to devote to the study of long, wordy, propositions and must rely upon such sketchy information as may be received through the press, radio or picked up in general conversation. If improper emphasis is placed upon one feature and the remaining features ignored, or if there is a failure to study the entire proposed amendment, the voter may be misled as to the over-all effect of the proposed amendment. (Ballot Pamp., Proposed Amends. to Cal. Const. with arguments to voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 2, 1948), argument in favor of Prop. 10, p. 8.) Given the complexity and length of Proposition 8 and the vagueness of the language of section 28(d), it is impossible to discern a clear intent of the electorate to abrogate independent state grounds for the exclusion of evidence. Under a proper construction of section 28(d), the trial court erred in admitting the evidence seized in the case at bar. Both parties concede that the search was unreasonable under California law. Because I believe section 28(d) did not repeal the vicarious exclusionary rule or other existing state grounds for the exclusion of evidence, I would hold that Lance had standing to challenge the unlawful search. When constitutional rights are implicated, the end cannot justify the means. The evidence is therefore inadmissible, and there appearing no other grounds in the record to uphold the search, I conclude that the order appealed from should be reversed.