Court Opinion

ID: 9552495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:12:05.067727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:37.805823
License: Public Domain

OPINION SUTIN, Judge. John Doe, a minor, was adjudged a delinquent child by reason of conduct in violation of § 30-9-13(A), N.M.S.A.1978 entitled Criminal Sexual Contact of a Minor. He appeals. We reverse. This matter comes here upon the record proper and a partial transcript of the testimony. We note errors appearing in the record which should be avoided. 1. On July 13, 1978, a Predispositional Order was entered. It states: “This matter coming on for trial this 13th day of July, 1978 . . ..”, whereas, the matter came on for trial before a jury on June 29, 1978. Below the printed form, the following appears in handwriting. July 24, 1978 — disposition—confined D-Home [Juvenile Detention Home]. [Emphasis added.] 2. On July 26, 1978, a Notice of Appeal was filed of record from the Judgment and Sentence heretofore entered. 3. On July 27, 1978, Judgment and Disposition was entered of record. It states that John Doe had been adjudged a delinquent child “pursuant to verdict by the court,” whereas, John Doe was found to have committed a delinquent act by verdict of the jury. These errors, negligent in dress, need no explanation. A. Failure to file pre-adjudicatory motion does not prevent motion at trial. During the jury trial, Dr. Louis Benevento, employed by “D” home was called as a witness by the State to give evidence about a medical test or examination for a sample taken from John Doe’s body. John Doe moved to suppress the evidence because it was illegally taken in violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court allowed the testimony to be presented to the jury. In this appeal, the State argues that the evidence was properly admitted because the motion was untimely; that it should have been filed prior to trial under Rule 14 (formerly Rule 13) of the Rules of Procedure for the Children’s Court. It reads: All pre-adjudicatory motions shall be filed: (a) within 10 days from the date the petition is filed * * * if the respondent is in * * * the custody of the department; or (b) in all other eases, within 20 days from the date the petition is filed * * .  The State is mistaken. A pre-adjudicatory motion must be filed within the time allowed if a respondent wants a hearing on the motion before commencement of trial. “The rules contemplate that objections to searches . . . and the like will be raised by prehearing motions similar to those used in district court. Rule 13 does not, however, provide' that objections not raised before the adjudicatory hearing are deemed waived.” Harris, Children’s Court Practice, etc., Under the New Rules, 6 N.M.L.Rev., 331, 354 (1975). In fact, Fourth Amendment limitations on searches and seizures are extended to children’s court as a basic right under the Children’s Code. Section 32-1-27(C)(2), N.M.S.A.1978. See, Matter of Doe, 89 N.M. 83, 547 P.2d 566 (Ct. App. 1976); Doe v. State, 88 N.M. 347, 540 P.2d 827 (Ct. App. 1975).  John Doe’s failure to file a pre-adjudicatory motion to suppress the evidence did not deny him the right to object to the admission of the evidence at trial. B. Doctor’s test was taken at request of governmental authority. The state argues that the Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because Dr. Benevento acted solely for diagnostic purposes and treatment for record keeping at “D” home and not at the request of any governmental authority. Dr. Benevento was employed at “D” home to perform medical services rendered to inmates who have any medical contact. He was present 5 days a week, Monday through Friday. The day that John Doe was taken to “D” home for detention, the intake officer told the doctor that John Doe was a new admission placed in isolation; that the intake officer had been informed that John Doe may have had a medical contact. On that basis, the doctor examined John Doe to identify the situation.  The State says that “evidence obtained by private parties and turned over to the police is not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” We made that clear in State v. Richerson, 87 N.M. 437, 535 P.2d 644 (Ct. App. 1975). In such circumstances, the State is not involved in taking the tests and thus there was no search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures was designed to protect people from government searches and did not apply to the acts of private individuals, State v. Jenkins, 80 Wis.2d 426, 259 N.W.2d 109 (1977), Commonwealth v. Gordon, 431 Pa. 512, 246 A.2d 325 (1968), even though the private individuals obtain the evidence illegally and turn it over to the police. Commonwealth v. Storella, 375 N.E.2d 348 (Mass. App. 1978).  However, the Juvenile Detention Home was created, maintained and supervised by the Board of County Commissioners who made the rules governing the conduct of the home. Section 33-6-5, N.M.S. A.1978. Dr. Benevento was employed and ordered to make tests of admitters who had a medical contact. The examination and tests made by Dr. Benevento were made at the request of the Board of County Commissioners, a governmental authority. John Doe was in “jail” in the custody of an inmate officer who had placed John Doe in isolation. Dr. Benevento acted as an employee of the “D” home in searching for the evidence and then acquiring or “seizing” the evidence. He stood in the same shoes of a police officer who, at the request of a district attorney, enters a jail thirty days after an inmate had been incarcerated for assault and battery. He was told that the inmate carried a weapon strapped to his body. He ordered the inmate to expose his body and there he found the brass knuckles. Dr. Benevento and the police officer were acting under government authority, not for private purposes. C. John Doe’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated.  The State contends that even though Dr. Benevento “was an agent of the State or that the police were involved in the doctor’s examination of defendant, the test would still not amount to an illegal search and seizure.” The criminal offense had occurred on March 23, 1978. Dr. Benevento obtained his evidence on April 18, 1978, 25 days later. There was no emergency. Dr. Benevento had John Doe expose himself. The doctor saw the evidence and took a sample from John Doe’s body. We note in passing that no evidence was presented that John Doe’s medical condition on April 18, 1978 existed on March 23, 1978. The Fourth Amendment provides that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons * * * against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . .” The prohibition appears in Art. II, § 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. It is well established that a search and seizure is constitutionally lawful under any one of three instances: (1) if conducted pursuant to a legal search warrant, (2) by consent, or (3) incident to a lawful arrest. State v. Sedillo, 79 N.M. 289, 442 P.2d 601 (Ct. App. 1968). None of these instances appearing of record, John Doe’s Fourth Amendment Rights were violated. All evidence acquired by Dr. Benevento is suppressed. Reversed. IT IS SO ORDERED. HERNANDEZ J., specially concurring. LOPEZ J., concurs.