# Fare v. Wayne H.

> California Supreme Court · June 21, 1979 · 24 Cal. 3d 595

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9601805

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re WAYNE H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. KENNETH F. FARE, as Acting Chief Probation Officer, Etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WAYNE H., Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 21, 1979
- **Citations:** 24 Cal. 3d 595; 156 Cal. Rptr. 344; 596 P.2d 1; 1979 Cal. LEXIS 271
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bird
- **Judges:** Richardson, Bird, Clark
- **Cited by:** 26 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9601805

## Opinion text

BIRD, C. J.,
Concurring.
— I write separately to underscore one additional problem that is present in this case.
Wayne H. was arrested at 9:10 p.m., November 23, 1976, but he was not brought before a probation officer until 8:10 p.m. the following day — 23 hours later. Welfare and Institutions Code section 626 provides that a police officer who takes a minor into temporary custody may: (a) release the minor; (b) release the minor upon his written promise to appear at a designated time and place; or (c) “take [the] minor without unnecessary delay before the probation officer . . . .” (Italics added.) 1 The record contains no explanation whatsoever for the police delay in bringing Wayne H. before a probation officer.
*604 A probation officer must investigate “immediately” the need for further detention of a minor under section 628. 2 Until a minor is brought before a probation officer, this investigation cannot commence. This responsibility was given to the probation officer to provide a prompt safeguard against an erroneous or arbitrary police decision to keep a minor in custody. (See Report of the Governor’s Special Study Commission on Juvenile Justice, Part II — A Study of the Administration of Juvenile Justice in California (1960) p. 81.) If a probation officer determines that further detention of a minor is necessary, then a petition must be filed “immediately.” (§ 630.) This initiates the juvenile proceedings. The greater the delay in taking a minor before the probation officer, the greater the delay in initiating proceedings and holding the detention hearing. (§ 632.)
The emphasis in the code on speedy procedures is readily apparent. 3 The unexplained 23-hour delay in this case is difficult to reconcile with the Legislature’s concern that the need for prolonged detention of a minor be resolved as quickly as possible. (See Report of the Governor’s Special Study Commission on Juvenile Justice, Part I — Recommendations for Changes in California’s Juvenile Court Law (1960) pp. 43-44.) 4
Subdivision (c) of section 626 in its present form also provides: “In no case shall [the officer] delay the delivery of the minor to the probation officer for more than 24 hours if such minor has been taken into custody without a warrant on the belief that he has committed a misdemeanor.” This sentence provides an outside limit on the permissible delay in misdemeanor cases, but it does not say that a 24-hour delay is always reasonable in such cases. (See People v. Williams (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 36, 43 [ 137 Cal.Rptr. 70 ], interpreting the words, “without unnecessary delay,” in Pen. Code, § 849.) A delay of less than 24 hours violates section 626 if there are no facts showing it was “necessary.”
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The Legislature’s concern is evidenced by its use in subdivision (a) of section 628 of the word “immediately” twice. Only if there exists one or more of the conditions specified in subsections (1) through (7) of subdivision (a) may the minor be further detained. Continued detention is “the exception, not the rule.” (In re William M. (1970) 3 Cal.3d 16, 26 [ 89 Cal.Rptr. 33 , 473 P.2d 737 ].)
This court has recently discussed at length the emphasis in the juvenile law on speedy procedures. See In re Robin M. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 337, 342-345 [ 146 Cal.Rptr. 352 , 579 P.2d 1 ].
The commission’s comments have been deemed persuasive evidence of legislative intent. See Brian W. v. Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 618, 623 [ 143 Cal.Rptr. 717 , 574 P.2d 788 ].

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9601805. Public record. Not legal advice.