Police Praise Ruling on Detained O.C. Youth’s Threats

SAN CLEMENTE —  In a decision hailed by police but troubling to civil libertarians, the California Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a San Clemente youth who had threatened a police officer during a controversial stop.

The decision involved a 17-year-old gang member who was questioned on the street by Orange County sheriff’s deputies on April 19, 1994, about a gang shooting that had occurred three days earlier.

The youth said he had no information about the crime and asked to be left alone. When deputies continued to question him, he became angry and threatened to kill them. He was arrested and convicted of threatening an officer in performance of his duties.

But the youth appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to convict him. The 4th District Court of Appeal in Santa Ana ruled that the deputy acted illegally in detaining the youth on the street for questioning after the youth said he didn’t want to talk. Therefore, the arrest itself was held invalid.

But the Supreme Court overturned the ruling, saying that making such threats to an officer is a crime “without regard” to whether the officer was legally questioning the youth.

Dennis L. Cava, the youth’s attorney, said the high court’s ruling could have a chilling effect on citizens’ rights, especially when confronted by police who might provoke or agitate someone into threatening them.

“They will know that, even if he or she illegally detains someone, they will still be able to arrest a person . . . if the person threatens the officer.”

Cava said a petition for rehearing will be filed in the Supreme Court.

But the ruling was received by law enforcement as good news, Deputy Atty. Gen. Niki Cox Shaffer said.

“Of course [the officer] acted lawfully,” Shaffer said. “There was never any doubt. The officer was doing exactly what we pay officers to do, investigate crimes. In this case, gang crimes.”

Sheriff’s Capt. Tom Davis said, “It’s good to hear this. In this case, the appellate court said you did this illegally. However, we still felt we were making consensual stops. And . . . it was nice to know that the Supreme Court said that what we were doing was right.”

The youth, identified only as Manuel G., was stopped by Deputy Brian Sims, who was trying to locate every active member of the San Clemente Varrio Chico gang, although he had not been assigned to investigate the gang shooting that had occurred.

Sims saw Manuel G. walking on the street and radioed that he was making a gang-related “pedestrian check.”

Sims got out of his patrol car, and the youth walked toward him. When Sims asked whether he could talk to the youth, the youth answered that he had no information.

Sims continued asking questions, but in response, the youth told him he was going to contact sheriff’s internal affairs and complain about Sims’ conduct.

The youth then said: “Me and my homeboys are going to start killing you and your friends.”

Manuel G. continued his threats, warning Sims that he better “watch his back” because “we’re going to start knocking you guys off.”

When a second officer arrived, he saw the youth seated on the curb next to Sims’ patrol car. But Sims insisted later to the court that the youth was free to leave at any time. The appellate court said it was “unlikely any reasonable person who was sitting on the curb under these circumstances would believe he was free to leave.”

The youth was declared a ward of the court and ordered to serve 180 days in a juvenile facility.