WA: A patdown of a runway juvenile before putting him in the patrol car was reasonable, but the full search of the person was not

A patdown of a runway juvenile before putting him in the patrol car was part of the community caretaking function. A complete search, however, was not. No weapon was found during the patdown, and the search of the pockets afterward finding methamphetamine and marijuana was unreasonable. State v. A.A., 2015 Wash. App. LEXIS 961 (April 30, 2015):

¶26 Under the act, a law enforcement officer is unquestionably fulfilling his or her role as a community caretaker when he or she encounters a child runaway or a child beyond the control of his parents. Under the act, the police have an obligation to transport the child to the appropriate secure facility. This implies authority to conduct an initial pat-down search for weapons before placing the child in the patrol car. However, we must be cautious in applying the community caretaking function exception and satisfy ourselves that the claimed function was not a pretext for an evidentiary search. Thus, in the context of a warrantless search stemming from noncriminal conduct, the search must be limited in scope by the circumstances of the particular encounter and “strictly” relevant to the community caretaking function. Kinzy, 141 Wn.2d at 388.

¶27 Here, the particular circumstances did not justify the search of A.A.’s pockets. Once the officer conducted the pat-down search and determined that A.A. did not have a weapon, the search should have stopped. A.A. had not committed a crime and, therefore, there was no need to preserve evidence of a crime. A.A. did not exhibit signs of dangerousness to himself or others. The only concern was for officer safety.

¶28 The State’s argument that the search was justified because the CRC requires a search of juveniles before admission is not persuasive nor is it relevant. Notably, the officer did not perform this search at the CRC according to CRC policy. We express no view regarding potential search issues at the CRC facility performed according to CRC policy. Under our facts, this was a noncriminal protective custody situation, which requires us to accord maximum weight to A.A.’s privacy interest in evaluating the reasonableness of the search. Unless the State can establish that the search fell under an exception to the warrant requirement, we must reverse. The State has failed to establish an exception.

¶29 Reversed.