# Opposition — David Levell W., a Minor v. State of California > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1735%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition - **Published:** January 1, 1980 - **Citation:** 449 U.S. 1043 ## Text Supreme Court U » 0 & FILED 0Ck 2 i960 MICHAEL RODAK, JR. CLERK NO. 80-5058 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1980 DAVID LEVELL W., a minor, Petitioner, Vv. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Attorney General of the State of California ROBERT H. PHILIBOSIAN, Chief Assistant Attorney General--Criminal Division S. CLARK MOORE, Assistant Attorney General EDWARD T. FOGEL, JR., Deputy Attorney General SHUNJI ASARI Deputy Attorney General ROY C. PREMINGER, Deputy Attorney General 3580 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (213) 736-2179 Attorneys for Respondent oo 4“ @ a2 f@ B&B DBD K& - e fb KF OC 14 SRBRBRRRRERBREB “a ~ NO. 80-5058 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1980 DAVID LEVELL W., a minor, Petitioner, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION QUESTION PRESENTED The issue is whether petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when police officers took . him from his home to the police station for questioning after petitioner's mother told the officers to take petitioner and also told petitioner to accompany the officers. esreeeeke i. ocooeoent 8c asf & BSB eS a en 2 ee aS. Ff wD KF SO $88 § &@ wD KF O SBRBRRRRRR a ~ his home to the police station. It is also true that the prosecution did not establish at petitioner's adjudication hearing that the police then had probable cause to arrest petitioner without a warrant. (See Cal. Pen. Code, § 836; RT 54-57.) However, Officers Johnson and Tyler nevertheless lawfully took petitioner from his home to the police station for questioning because, contrary to petitioner's assertion, petitioner's mother had lawful authority to instruct the officers to take petitioner to the police station. It was only because petitiones'’s sorter ‘e car had broken down that she had not previously brought petitioner to the police station and was unable to bring him to the station on the date the officers came to her and petitioner's house. There was no other reason. (RT 42.) In the exercise of her parental right to care for, discipline and control petitioner's upbringing and behavior, a liberty interest protected by the due process - clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, petitioner's mother herself lawfully could have brought petitioner to the police station at any time she saw fit. Consequently, there was nothing unlawful or improper about her telling Officers Johnson and Tyler to take petitioner to the station and her telling petitioner to accompany the sitteecs.” Even where there is an invasion of a protected freedom, the power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults. (Ginsberg v. New York (1968) 390 U.S. 629, 638; Prince Ve. Massachusetts (1944) 321 U.S. 158, 170.) Furthermore, parents have powers greater than those of the state to curtail their minor child's 1. At the time petitioner's mother told the police to take petitioner to the station, petitioner was 13 years old. (CT 8.) 7. o eo Nt 82 a ff CB NK Yy - ~~ ~~ &— a ff Aa wb KF OC SRBRBRRBRRBRR wa ~ . jurisprudence historically has reflected Western Civilization exercise of the constitutional rights the child may otherwise enjoy; a parent's own constitutionally protected liberty includes the right to bring up his or her children (Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) 262.U.S. 390, 399), and to direct the upbringing and education of his or her children. (Pierce v. Society of Sisters te (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534-535.) As against the state, this parental duty and right is subject to limitations only if it appears that parental decisions will jeopardize the health and safety of the child, or have a potential for significant social burdens. (Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) 406 U.S. 205, 234.) As noted by this Honorable Court in Prince v. Massachusetts, supra (1944) 321 U.S. 158, 166, “It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." As this Court also recently recognized, this nation's concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course; our constitutional system long ago rejected any notion that a child is the mere creature of the state and, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare their children for additional obligations. The law's concept of the family rests or @ presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions. More important, historically it has been recognized that natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children. (Parham V. J. R. (1979) 442 U.S. 584, 602.) In the case at bench, petitioner's mother, in the oon 8f8F a2 f® ff ND YF el ee ee a ef & WD KF O 16 $88 8'. fe kb FY CO SBRBRRBRRBRB wa ~ CONCLUSION» For the foregoing reasons, it is requested that the petition for writ of certiorari be denied. ; Respectfully submitted, GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Attorney General of the State of California ROBERT H. PHILIBOSIAN, Chief Assistant Attorney General--Criminal Division S. CLARK MOORE, Assistant Attorney General EDWARD T. FOGEL;, JR. Deputy Attorney General SHUNJI ASARI, Deputy Attorney General ROY C. P f Deputy Attorney Gener Attorneys for Respondent 12. 2nd Crim. No. 35263 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN BANK IN RE DAVID W., A PERSON COMING UNDER THE JUVENILE COURT LAW SUPREME CO''TT bes JUL 1 8 1980 DAVID W. LAURENCE P. Gilt, Clork in Deopxty The Reporter of Decisions is directed not to publish in the Official Reports the opinion in the above entitled proceeding filed March 18, 1980 which appears at 103 Cal. App. 3d 469. (Cal. Const., Art., VI, section 14; Rule 976, Cal. Rules of Court.) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385007_1735%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.