Court Opinion

ID: 9629281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:39:57.074417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:45.207049
License: Public Domain

*104BIRD, C. J.
I respectfully dissent.
Article VI, section 22 of the California Constitution allows juvenile traffic hearing officers to perform only “subordinate judicial duties.” In view of this constitutional limitation, a traffic hearing officer may not make a final decision in a contested juvenile traffic infraction case.
Except in preliminary or uncontested matters, a subordinate judicial officer’s findings must be subject to review by a judge before they may become final. (Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 351, 366-370 [110 Cal.Rptr. 353, 515 P.2d 297]; In re Edgar M. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 727, 732-736 [122 Cal.Rptr. 574, 537 P.2d 406].) The officer’s findings are deemed “advisory only,” unless the parties have stipulated that he may act as a judge pro tem. (Id., at p. 735.) However, if the officer’s findings become final without judicial review, his acts are effectively “the acts of the court itself . . . ,” which is precluded under article VI, section 22. (Id., at p. 736.) In this appeal, it must be determined if a juvenile traffic hearing officer is deciding preliminary or uncontested matters and whether his findings and orders become final without judicial review.
A hearing officer in a contested traffic infraction case in juvenile court hears the testimony of all the witnesses, weighs the evidence, resolves any conflicts in the testimony, and gives or withholds credence to particular witnesses. Ultimately, he determines whether the minor is “guilty” of the alleged offense. (See Veh. Code, § 13103.) If he finds in the affirmative, the minor is found to have been “convicted” of a “crime” and sentence is imposed. (Id., § 13105; Pen. Code, § 15.) These are judicial acts and duties. (Esteybar v. Municipal Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 119, 127 [95 Cal.Rptr. 524, 485 P.2d 1140]; People v. Superior Court (On Tai Ho) (1974) 11 Cal.3d 59, 66 [113 Cal.Rptr. 21, 520 P.2d 405].)
The hearing officer is given great latitude in imposing punishment for the offense. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 258.)1 His options include the imposition of a fine and a penalty assessment, the suspension or restriction of the minor’s driving privileges, and ordering a “program of supervision” under a probation officer. (Ibid.) This court has held that “[t]he imposition of sentence and the exercise of sentencing judgment are fundamentally and inherently judicial functions.” (People v. Navarro (1972) 7 Cal.3d 248, 258 [102 Cal.Rptr. 137, 497 P.2d 481].)
*105The statute allows the traffic hearing officer’s findings to become final without judicial review.2 Therefore, when the hearing officer decides guilt or innocence, when he imposes punishment, he acts as a final arbiter in a judicial capacity contrary to the Constitution.
This statutory system is constitutionally infirm for another reason. There is no requirement that a transcript be made of the proceedings before the traffic hearing officer. (See maj. opn., ante, at p. 97, fn. 4.) Section 260 requires a written report only of the traffic hearing officer’s “findings and orders.” This may be nothing more than a summary of the officer’s conclusions. As a result, there is no record or “data amply sufficient for” a judge to form “a judgment independent from that of” the officer who initially decided the case. (In re Edgar M., supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 736.) Therefore, “meaningful review” of the subordinate judicial officer’s findings and order is impossible.
There is a further constitutional defect. If a traffic hearing officer’s findings are in favor of a minor, that order would be a final determination. However, subordinate judicial officers under article VI, section 22 cannot make final judgments. (See In re Edgar M., supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 732.)
The majority contend that article VI, section 22 is inapplicable because the proceeding involves a “routine traffic infraction” carrying “only a small fine.” (Ante, atp. 98.) Is the deprivation of a minor’s liberty by placing him on probation for six months a “small fine?”3 (§ 258, subd. (a)(3)(iv).) Is the suspension or restriction of a minor’s driving privileges (subd. (a)(3)(i)) or an order requiring the minor to attend traffic school over a period of 60 days (subd. (a)(3)(ii)) an insignificant sanction? Is a fine up to $50 with a $15 penalty assessment minor? (§ 258, subd. (a)(3)(iii); *106Veh. Code, § 42050.) A “fine may bear as heavily on an indigent accused as forced confinement.” (Mayer v. City of Chicago (1971) 404 U.S. 189, 197 [30 L.Ed.2d 372, 380, 92 S.Ct. 410].) In many cases a traffic fine “may constitute a very real hardship for . . . those obliged to pay.” (People v. Carlucci (1979) 23 Cal.3d 249, 257 [152 Cal.Rptr. 439, 590 P.2d 15].) It is not unusual for a minor to face higher insurance rates or the denial of insurance altogether as a result of an infraction conviction. (Ibid.) These potential consequences are not insignificant.
This court has consistently focused on the nature of the duties performed to determine whether they are in fact “subordinate judicial duties” under article VI, section 22. (See, e.g., Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp., supra, 10 Cal.3d at pp. 362-363, fn. 7, 366, 370; In re Edgar M., supra, 14 Cal.3d at pp. 733-736.) The majority have overlooked Rooney and its holding that subordinate judicial officers may not make final determinations of “facts prerequisite to entering judgment.” (10 Cal.3d at p. 370.) Clearly, traffic hearing officers are exercising these powers even though it is prohibited under our Constitution.
The use of traffic hearing officers to decide contested cases may be practically and financially desirable. However, there is an insurmountable obstacle which prevents this practice. It is called the Constitution of the State of California.

Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

Although the minor may apply to a judge of the superior court for a modification or rehearing, his application will be deemed denied if it is not acted upon within 10 days of the traffic hearing officer’s orders. (§ 262.) If the court simply allows the time period to lapse, the officer’s findings are final.

The majority suggest that “involuntary supervision” is not “contemplate[dj” by the statute. (Ante, at p. 100.) Were the consequences not so serious for the minor, this misinterpretation of the statute could be overlooked. Subdivision (a)(3) of section 258 explicitly authorizes the traffic hearing officer to “order [ ]” a “program of supervision,” whether the minor or his parents or guardian agree. Section 654, on which the majority rely for their interpretation, has no application to such an order. Section 654 applies to the situation in which a probation officer recommends to the minor and his parents or guardian that such a program be undertaken. However, when a probation officer is acting as a traffic hearing officer, section 258 empowers him to order such programs of supervision.