# People v. Smith

> California Supreme Court · August 31, 1976 · 17 Cal. 3d 845

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847127

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GREGORY DONALD SMITH, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 31, 1976
- **Citations:** 17 Cal. 3d 845; 132 Cal. Rptr. 397; 553 P.2d 557; 1976 Cal. LEXIS 327
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mosk
- **Judges:** Wright, Mosk, Clark
- **Cited by:** 46 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/9847127

## Opinion text

MOSK, J.
I concur in the judgment.
I do so reluctantly, however, because of the failure of the majority to forthrightly face the problem created by this court’s opinion in People v. Scoma (1969) 71 Cal.2d 332 [ 78 Cal.Rptr. 491 , 455 P.2d 419 ]. Had my dissent in Scoma (id., at p. 340) been the prevailing law of California the police officer would have been alerted to the need in his affidavit of identifying the informer as a juvenile and pursuant to law the boy would have qualified as a citizen-informer.
I adhere to the position advocated in my dissent in Scoma : that in these circumstances we should not weigh a minor’s role as an informant in the classic sense; a minor should be deemed a victim. While the 17-year-old boy in this case is hardly a model of civic virtue, he had been furnished marijuana by persons dealing in contraband and to that extent was a victim of a criminal offense. (People v. Poindexter (1958) 51 Cal.2d 142, 149-150 [ 330 P.2d 763 ]; People v. Chrisman (1967) 256 Cal.App.2d 425, 435 [ 64 Cal.Rptr. 733 ].)
A victim is deemed a reliable citizen-informant. (People v. Ramey (1976) 16 Cal.3d 263, 268-269 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 629 , 545 P.2d 1333 ].) A juvenile’s complaint against his supplier of contraband has been held sufficient to provide probable cause for an arrest. (People v. Bishop (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 658 [45 CaLRptr. 533]; People v. Weathers (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 545 [ 328 P.2d 222 ].) And his observations have been deemed adequate for the issuance of a search warrant (People v. Schulle (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 809 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 585 ]).
The test is not the facts known to the officer, but, according to Aguilar v. Texas (1964) 378 U.S. 108 [ 12 L.Ed.2d 723 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 ], the factual *855 information related in the affidavit submitted to the magistrate. Unfortunately the officer failed to disclose the informant’s age. Had he done so the affidavit would be sufficient.
I hope in the future that law enforcement officers will indicate in their affidavits when they rely upon information obtained from juveniles. And whenever we have a clear-cut opportunity I trust this court will adopt the rule urged in the Scoma dissent. It will “further the use of warrants” by removing “unnecessary burdens upon their use.” (People v. Keener (1961) 55 Cal.2d 714, 723 [ 12 Cal.Rptr. 859 , 361 P.2d 587 ].)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847127. Public record. Not legal advice.