Reported / Citable
Background
In February 2025, N.S., a student at a public middle school in Orange County, walked past a school liaison officer—a Fullerton Police officer in full uniform assigned to patrol the campus—and remarked, 'I have a Glock, too,' while looking at the officer's gun. The officer sent N.S. to the principal's office to be searched. N.S. refused, used profanity, and walked out toward the parking lot. The officer followed and ordered him to return inside five times; each time N.S. verbally refused, at one point saying, 'I'll slap the shit out of you,' and insisting the officer lacked probable cause. He remained by a bench refusing to return for around ten minutes until a second officer arrived, then agreed to return, where he and his belongings were searched. He was arrested and booked into juvenile hall.
The Orange County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition charging N.S. with resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer under Penal Code section 148(a)(1). After a jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found the allegation true beyond a reasonable doubt and, at disposition, declared N.S. a nonward for up to six months with probation conditions. N.S. appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported the finding and that the search was unlawful because the officer needed probable cause, not reasonable suspicion.
The Court of Appeal filed its original opinion on September 8, 2026, affirming the order. N.S. petitioned for rehearing, raising a Penal Code section 833.5 argument for the first time in his reply brief. On October 8, 2026, the court issued an order modifying the opinion and denying rehearing, with no change in judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the juvenile court's order. On substantial evidence, it found N.S.'s conduct analogous to In re Muhammed C.: he refused five repeated commands, walked away across the parking lot forcing the officer to pursue him, and delayed the weapons investigation for ten minutes. The court distinguished People v. Quiroga, where slow compliance and verbal criticism were protected, because N.S. physically removed himself from the investigation and substantially interfered with the search. His First Amendment argument failed because his conduct went beyond verbal criticism into actual interference with the officer's duties.
On the search's lawfulness, the court held that school liaison officers qualify as 'school officials' for Fourth Amendment purposes under In re William V. and In re K.J., so they need only reasonable suspicion—not probable cause—to search a student on campus. N.S.'s own statement that he had a gun supplied reasonable suspicion; the court found the credibility of his statement arguably greater than the anonymous accusation in In re Alexander B. because it came from N.S. himself and the search targeted only him. The danger of a firearm on campus outweighed his privacy interests.
The October 8, 2026 order denied rehearing and made no change to the judgment. The substituted paragraph rejected N.S.'s claim that the officer should have conducted only a patdown, noting he cited no authority requiring school officials to use less intrusive means and that his police-officer cases did not involve liaison officers on school grounds. The new footnote declined to consider his section 833.5 argument because points raised first in a reply brief are not considered absent good cause (Nordstrom Com. Cases), and disregarded other new rehearing arguments under In re Foster.
Key Takeaways
- Police officers assigned to public schools as liaison or resource officers are school officials under the Fourth Amendment and may search students on reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.
- A student's own statement claiming to have a gun on campus provides reasonable suspicion for a weapons search; whether it was a joke is for the juvenile court to weigh.
- Refusing repeated commands, walking away, and remaining away for around ten minutes can satisfy section 148(a)(1), going beyond the protected slow compliance in Quiroga.
- Arguments raised first in a reply brief or rehearing petition are forfeited absent good cause.
- The October 8, 2026 order modified the opinion but expressly left the judgment unchanged.
Why It Matters
This published opinion confirms that California school liaison officers operate under the reasonable suspicion standard when searching students, rejecting attempts to impose probable cause merely because the searcher is a sworn officer. It also draws a line between protected verbal protest and punishable obstruction under section 148(a)(1) when a minor physically departs and delays a weapons search.
The modification order reminds appellate practitioners that courts will use rehearing modifications to shore up reasoning while strictly enforcing forfeiture rules against late-raised arguments.