Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ALFREDO A. v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court

Decided January 24, 1994No. S024618Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

ARABIAN, J., Concurring and Dissenting.

I concur in the lead opinion insofar as it requires prompt probable cause determinations for juveniles within 72 hours of warrantless arrest. (See lead opn., ante, this page.) I respectfully dissent, however, from the due process analysis by which the lead opinion reaches this conclusion. Petitioner does not dispute his postarrest detention on that basis; nor does he raise such a challenge to any provision of the juvenile court law governing wardship detentions in general (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602 et seq.). Rather, he asserts that, like any adult in…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
  3. In Re GAULTSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  4. Gerstein v. PughSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  5. New Jersey v. T. L. O.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API