In re Kathy P., 599 P. 2d 65 - Cal: Supreme Court 1979

[admin]

BIRD, C.J.

I respectfully dissent.

Article VI, section 22 of the California Constitution allows juvenile traffic hearing officers to perform only "subordinate judicial duties." In view of this constitutional limitation, a traffic hearing officer may not make a final decision in a contested juvenile traffic infraction case.

Except in preliminary or uncontested matters, a subordinate judicial officer's findings must be subject to review by a judge before they may become final. (Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 351, 366-370 [110 Cal. Rptr. 353, 515 P.2d 297]; In re Edgar M. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 727, 732-736 [122 Cal. Rptr. 574, 537 P.2d 406].) The officer's findings are deemed "advisory only," unless the parties have stipulated that he may act as a judge pro tem. (Id., at p. 735.) However, if the officer's findings become final without judicial review, his acts are effectively "the acts of the court itself ...," which is precluded under article VI, section 22. (Id., at p. 736.) In this appeal, it must be determined if a juvenile traffic hearing officer is deciding preliminary or uncontested matters and whether his findings and orders become final without judicial review.

*There is no law or code that permits a court to place your case in front of a subordinate judicial officer SJO or commissioner to 'hear and decide' the case without your consent. You must stipulate for a commissioner or SJO to hear your case.