## Facts

- A juvenile petition under Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 was filed against Samuel Z., alleging he possessed secobarbital, then classified as a restricted dangerous drug under former Health and Safety Code § 11910.
- The events leading to the secobarbital evidence began with Samuel’s brother, Steven, also a minor.
- Steven testified that while at a friend’s house he found marijuana cigarettes, and the friend’s father called the sheriff’s department.
- A deputy sheriff responded and searched Steven, finding a cigarette in Steven’s pocket and seizing it.
- A few days later, a laboratory analysis confirmed the seized cigarette contained marijuana.
- After receiving the laboratory confirmation, the deputy went to Steven’s school (April 16, 1968) and arrested Steven for the earlier marijuana possession.
- Before transporting Steven, the deputy began a search of Steven incident to the arrest; during that search Steven produced four capsules and handed them to the deputy.
- The capsules were analyzed and found to contain secobarbital.
- The discovery of the secobarbital during Steven’s arrest led law enforcement to Samuel and was used in Samuel’s juvenile wardship proceeding.
- Samuel sought exclusion of the secobarbital evidence (and related evidence flowing from Steven’s arrest) on the theory it was the product of an unlawful arrest and search of Steven under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.

## Issues

1. Did the deputy have probable cause to arrest Steven at school for the earlier marijuana offense based on the prior seizure and subsequent laboratory confirmation?
2. If Steven’s arrest and the search incident to arrest were lawful, could Samuel suppress the secobarbital evidence as “fruit of the poisonous tree” in Samuel’s juvenile proceeding?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s order declaring Samuel Z. a ward of the court.
- The court held Steven’s arrest was lawful because the deputy had probable cause to arrest Steven for marijuana possession after receiving the laboratory report confirming the seized cigarette was marijuana.
- Because Steven’s arrest was lawful, the search incident to that arrest and the resulting seizure of the secobarbital capsules were lawful.
- With no unlawful police conduct, Samuel’s “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument failed.

## Legal Principles

- Probable cause may rest on an officer’s knowledge that previously seized material has been confirmed by laboratory analysis to be contraband, supporting a later warrantless arrest for the earlier offense.
- A warrantless arrest for a past offense may be made when the officer has probable cause; the passage of time between the offense and the arrest does not by itself defeat probable cause.
- A search incident to a lawful custodial arrest is permissible and may include a search of the arrestee’s person before transport.
- The exclusionary rule’s derivative-evidence doctrine (as discussed in cases such as *Wong Sun v. United States*) requires an initial illegality; when the arrest and search are lawful, there is no taint to suppress in a related proceeding, including a juvenile wardship case.

## Conclusion

In *In re Z.*, the Court of Appeal upheld a juvenile wardship adjudication for possession of secobarbital, ruling that the officer had probable cause to arrest the minor’s brother at school for earlier marijuana possession once a lab confirmed the seized cigarette was marijuana; the ensuing search incident to arrest and seizure of secobarbital were lawful, so the evidence was not suppressible as fruit of unlawful police conduct.


In re Z., 10 Cal. App. 3d 565, 89 Cal. Rptr. 246 (1970)