Conditions of Probation
Category > Conditions of Probation
Updated 3/7/2024The probation condition allowing for warrantless search of the minor’s electronic devices was improper absent evidence that he used such devices while committing a crime. The juvenile defendant was placed on probation after admitting two counts of felony burglary. As a condition of his probation, he was required to submit to warrantless searches of all electronic devices even though there was no evidence that he used electronic devices in the commission of the burglaries. Absent evidence that he used electronic devices in the commission of any illegal activity, the probation condition was not reasonably related to future criminality, and was therefore invalid. id: 26360
Updated 3/6/2024Electronic search condition authorizing searches of insuring the minor was complying with all probation conditions was overly broad. The minor was found to have committed felony assault. The probation condition requiring her to submit to warrantless searches was overly broad. The court could have imposed an electronic search condition to make sure the minor had no contact with the victim, but the condition as imposed went too far.id: 26668
Updated 3/5/2024Electronics search condition did not relate to future criminality for minor convicted of indecent exposure.The minor was found to have committed indecent exposure. The probation condition requiring him to submit to warrantless searches of his electronic devices was unreasonable where the juvenile court made no finding that the condition was necessary to monitor the minor’s compliance with probation conditions or deter future criminal conduct. That the condition would facilitate supervision did not make it reasonably related to future criminality.id: 26768
Updated 3/5/2024Juvenile court erred by requiring that the minor and his parents be financially liable for the psychological assessments as a condition of probation.The juvenile court did not err by imposing a probation condition requiring that the minor submit to psychological assessments. However, the portion of the condition making the minor and his parents financially liable for the assessment was unauthorized by law.id: 26771
Updated 3/5/2024Probation condition requiring the minor to report “any police contacts” was unconstitutionally vague.The probation condition requiring the minor “to report any police contacts” to her probation officer was unconstitutionally vague. The matter was remanded to allow the juvenile court to make a proper modification.id: 26988
Updated 3/4/2024The juvenile court erred in requiring the minor to pay the cost for attending DUI-related programs. The juvenile court erred by requiring the ward to pay the cost for drunk driving related programs that were ordered as a condition of probation. id: 27791
Updated 3/4/2024Entering into a negotiated plea did not insulate the parties from mandatory changes in the law such as the reduction of probation under AB 1950. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke the defendant’s probation because AB 1950 (limiting probation to two years) applied retroactively. On remand, the court should terminate his probation, which had already been served. The prosecution was not entitled to an opportunity to withdraw approval of the negotiated plea. id: 27800
Updated 3/4/2024The juvenile court erred by requiring the minor to pay for a domestic violence program that was imposed as a condition of probation.The juvenile court did not have the authority to require the minor or his family to pay for a treatment program to address his violent behavior imposed as a probation condition. id: 27434
Updated 3/4/2024The juvenile court erred by requiring the minor to pay for a domestic violence program that was imposed as a condition of probation. The juvenile court did not have the authority to require the minor or his family to pay for a treatment program to address his violent behavior imposed as a probation condition. id: 27486
Updated 3/4/2024Probation condition prohibiting defendant’s access to “communication devices” was overbroad and had to be modified.Defendant was convicted of making harassing electronic communications in violation of Penal Code section 653m(b), a misdemeanor. He harassed the victim using email, text messages and Facebook. The probation condition prohibiting him from accessing social media websites was not improperly overbroad. However, the condition that prohibited his access to “communication devices” (rather than “electronic storage devices”) was overbroad and needed to be modified.id: 26843
Updated 2/26/2024The trial court abused its discretion by imposing a probation condition requiring urinalysis testing that required defendant to pay $25 per test.Defendant pled guilty to identify theft. The probation department recommended urinalysis testing that would cost defendant $25 per test, and the trial court ordered it. However, ordering the condition was an abuse of discretion as the record did not show defendant used drugs or alcohol.id: 26271
Updated 2/22/2024Marijuana-related probation conditions were improper for defendant convicted of auto theft.Defendant pled guilty to auto theft. He admitted that he smoked marijuana on the day of the arrest, but he had taken the car five days earlier. The sentencing court erred by imposing a probation condition prohibiting defendant from using or possessing marijuana. The condition regulating lawful conduct was not reasonably related to the crime of which he was convicted or future criminality.id: 27020
Updated 2/4/2024Probation condition restricting defendant’s access to the Internet was unconstitutionally overbroad.Defendant pled no contest to certain sex offense in a case involving a minor victim. The probation condition requiring him to submit to warrantless searches of his electronic devices was reasonable given the fact that predators commonly use social media to contact and groom minors. However, the condition restricting defendants’ access to the internet was overbroad and improper.id: 27563
Updated 1/31/2024Probation condition prohibiting defendant from possessing pornographic materials was unconstitutionally vague.Defendant pled no contest to possessing child pornography. The probation condition prohibiting him from possessing pornographic materials was unconstitutionally vague where the term wasn't defined, wasn't restricted to child pornography, and would have arguably applied to art or the movies.id: 28049
Unpaid restitution debts do not foreclose a finding of satisfactory completion of probation.The juvenile court erred by finding that defendant’s probation terminated “unsuccessfully” because he failed to pay restitution ordered as a condition of probation. Unpaid restitution debts do not foreclose a finding of satisfactory completion of probation.id: 24905
Probation condition prohibiting access to Facebook violated the First Amendment and was modified to allow use with probation officer’s consent. Minor was found to have committed battery and placed on probation . He challenged the probation condition prohibiting him from using or gaining access to any social networking site including Facebook. The condition was modified to provide that the minor may not use any social networking site “without the express permission of his probation officer.”id: 25873
The court struck as vague the probation condition requiring that the defendant have only “peaceful” contact with the police. The probation condition requiring that defendant must have “peaceful” contact with, and not act “aggressively” towards police was unconstitutionally vague. Because no party proposed a modification that would remedy the ambiguity, the court struck the condition.id: 25706
Mandatory supervision requiring defendant to report “any contacts with” police was vague.The mandatory supervision condition requiring defendant to report “any contact with” police officers was improperly vague. The matter was remanded with directions to modify the condition.id: 25042
The no-pornography probation condition was vague and remanded for clarification. The minor defendant was convicted of indecent exposure. He argued the probation condition prohibiting him from accessing pornography was vague and had to be modified to specify that he could not possess material his probation officer deemed pornographic. The court agreed the condition was vague but remanded the case to the juvenile court to clarify the condition’s purpose and precisely conform the condition to that purpose.id: 24942
The probation condition prohibiting the minor from possessing any data deletion tools was unconstitutionally vague.The probation condition that the minor not possess or utilize any device that deletes electronic data from a device was unconstitutionally vague, and the addition of an express knowledge requirement would not cure the defect.id: 24851
The “no drug use” probation condition was invalid given the lack of evidence that defendant had used drugs in the last 10 years. Defendant was convicted of vandalism. He challenged the “no alcohol” probation condition since he was over 21, and there was no evidence he’d been drinking at the time of the incident. However, he was a member of a gang that regularly met at the park and drank, and so the probation condition was valid. However, the “no drug use” condition was invalid as there was no evidence that he had used or sold drugs or marijuana for 10 years.id: 25509
The treatment and counseling probation condition was invalid absent evidence that defendant suffered from any mental health issues.The “treatment, therapy and counseling” probation condition was improper as there was no evidence in the record that he suffered from any mental health issues.id: 25510
Probation condition forbidding defendant from using, owning, or possessing, depictions of nudity was constitutionally overbroad.The minor was found to have committed misdemeanor sexual battery on a female high school classmate. The probation condition banning him from owning or possessing any material that depicts partial or complete nudity was unconstitutionally overbroad since it was not limited to sexually explicit depictions of nudity, and could have been violated if defendant had family photos that included a baby’s first bath, an art textbook, or if he watched television documentaries such as Roots.id: 25500
The electronic search probation condition was overbroad because of its potential impact in allowing the state to search into all private matters in defendant’s life.Defendant was convicted of domestic abuse, and the court imposed a warrantless electronics device search probation condition. Even though the condition may reasonably relate to future criminality, it is overbroad for purposes of the Fourth Amendment given its essentially unprecedented intrusion into the private affairs of the defendant that will likely have nothing to do with criminality.id: 25418
The drug testing fee was an improper probation condition where defendant was not convicted of a drug-related offense.The plain meaning of Penal Code section 1203.1 ab authorizes imposition of a drug testing fee only when a probationer has been convicted of a drug-related offense. It was improper in the present case where defendant was convicted of the unlawful possession of ammunition even though drugs were found in the house.id: 25336
Probation condition prohibiting the minor from associating with gangs was unreasonable where his theft offense was unrelated to gang activity.The juvenile was found to have committed grand theft from a person. The probation condition prohibiting him from associating with gang members and associates was unreasonable because there was no nexus between the offense and gang activity.id: 25220
The trial court erred by not ruling on defendant’s objections to the mandatory supervision conditions. Defendant pled guilty to a drug offense, and challenged certain mandatory supervision conditions relating to alcohol consumption and treatment. The trial court erred by not ruling on defendant’s objections, instead deferring any rulings to the mandatory supervision judge. However, defendant suffered no prejudice as the conditions were reasonable and valid.id: 25135
Probation condition restricting the minor’s possession of electronic devices violated his freedom of speech by interfering with his ability to communicate on the Internet and via cell phone.The minor was found to have made criminal threats and possessed ammunition. The probation condition barring him from knowing possession or use of all electronic devices (except for use in school projects) imposed a restriction on his freedom of speech that was not narrowly tailored to the circumstances of his crimes and his rehabilitation.id: 25055
Curfew condition of probation was invalid for defendant convicted of drug possession and drunk driving.Defendant pled guilty to possessing cocaine for sale and drunk driving. The trial court imposed a curfew from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. as a condition of probation. However, the curfew condition was invalid as it wasn’t reasonably related to preventing future criminality.id: 24909
The probation condition prohibiting defendant from possessing sexually explicit materials was modified to add a knowledge requirement.The probation condition prohibiting defendant from possessing sexually explicit materials was vague or overbroad and was modified to prohibit only those items identified by the probation officer.id: 24912
Warrantless search of “electronics including passwords” probation condition was invalid for minor found to have possessed a knife on school property. The minor was found to have possessed a knife. The probation condition that he submit to warrantless searches of his “electronics including passwords” bore no relationship to the underlying offense and was not reasonably related to his possible future criminal activity. It was therefore invalid. id: 24502
Probation condition was improper as defendant could not have known whether alcohol was the chief item for sale in many places.The probation condition requiring that defendant not go to “any establishment where alcohol is the chief item for sale” is ambiguous. It was changed to add a knowledge requirement to give defendant fair warning of what places to avoid.id: 24422
Probation condition requiring defendant to obtain permission before moving out of the county or state was unreasonable. Defendant was convicted of drunk driving with prior convictions and was placed on felony probation. The probation condition requiring him to obtain permission from his probation officer or an order from the court before moving out of Monterey County or leaving the state was unreasonable because there was no showing that his living situation contributed to his future criminality.id: 24640
Electronic search probation condition was overbroad and modified to allow searches of communication where the minor might boast of drug use. The minor admitted to public intoxication. The probation condition requiring him to submit to warrantless searches of his electronics including passwords, was reasonably related to future criminality but it was overbroad because it was not narrowly tailored to further the minor’s rehabilitation. It was modified to allow searches of communication reasonably likely to reveal whether the minor was boasting of drug use. id: 24634
Probation conditions requiring the minor to behave and do well in school were vague and stricken.The probation conditions requiring that the minor behave and “perform well” at school, and that he generally engage in “good conduct” were unconstitutionally vague, and the court ordered them stricken.id: 24635
Probation condition allowing a search of all computers and electronic devices was unconstitutionally overbroad.Defendant pled no contest to false imprisonment by deceit. The probation condition allowing for searches of all of his computers and electronic devices was overbroad as worded. The matter was remanded to allow the court to impose a more tailored condition. Assuming the court fashions a proper limited search of defendant’s computers, the additional condition that he may not delete his browsing history is valid.id: 24586
Probation condition prohibiting the minor from being on school property was vague absent a knowledge requirement.The probation condition that prohibited the minor from an unauthorized or unsupervised presence on school property was vague and had to be modified to require the minor’s knowledge that she was on school grounds.id: 24591
Probation condition allowing a warrantless search of all electronic devices was modified to permit searches likely to reveal whether the minor was boasting about drug use or was otherwise involved with drugs. The minor admitted to being an accessory to illegal drug sales. The juvenile court imposed a probation condition requiring him to submit to the warrantless search of his electronic devices and his use of social media. The condition was reasonably related to future criminality. However, it was overbroad as it permitted the search of too much private information. It was modified to allow for searches of programs used for interpersonal communication.id: 24449
Probation condition requiring minor to submit to a search of his electronics including passwords was unreasonable. The minor was found to have committed a petty theft. The court thereafter imposed a condition of probation that required him to permit searches of and disclose all passwords to his electronic devices and social media sites. However, the condition was unreasonable because there was no evidence connecting the juvenile’s electronic device or social media usage to his offense or to a risk of future criminal conduct.id: 24408
The probation condition prohibiting the possession of dangerous drugs was vague.Probation condition prohibiting defendant from possessing dangerous drugs was vague and replaced with the term “controlled substances."id: 24423
Probation condition requiring that the minor receive “satisfactory grades” was modified to require “passing grades.” The minor argued that the probation conditions that he receive “satisfactory grades” and demonstrate “good behavior at school “were unconstitutionally vague. The court modified the first condition to require that he receive “passing” grades. The “good behavior” condition was not vague and simply requires that he follow school rules.id: 24397
Probation condition allowing a full search of the minor’s cell phone and electronics was overbroad and it was modified to allow searches of texts, emails, photos and social media.The minor challenged the probation condition requiring him to submit his “electronics and passwords” to his probation officer for warrantless searches. The probation condition was not unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481. It was overbroad to the extent that it allowed searches beyond texts, emails, voice messages, photographs and social media accounts. The court rejected the claim that the condition posed a risk of illegal eavesdropping by allowing searches of communications with third parties because the minor lacked standing to raise the issue.id: 24399
The electronic search condition was overbroad because it wasn’t narrowly tailored to further the minor’s rehabilitation.The minor was found to have committed first degree burglary and was placed on probation. One of his probation conditions required him to submit his warrantless searches of his “electronics including passwords.” The condition was overbroad because it infringes on the minor’s right to privacy and expression without being sufficiently tailored. The court struck the condition and remanded the case so that the juvenile court could tailor a condition to the minor’s circumstances.id: 24360
Electronic search probation condition in minor’s case was overbroad by including searches of social media accounts and information stored remotely. The probation condition that the minor permit searches of, and disclose passwords to, electronic devices and social media sites was overbroad in allowing access to information stored in a remote location or the content of his social media accounts. A condition allowing searches of electronic devices found in defendant’s custody and control would be proper. The condition also cannot extend to the minor’s family.id: 24337
The probation condition requiring the minor drug possessor to submit her electronic devices for a search was unreasonable. The minor admitted to drug possession. As a condition of probation the juvenile court ordered that she submit to searches of her electronic devices and turn over her passwords to the probation officer. However, this was an unreasonable probation condition as there was no evidence connecting her electronic devices or social media usage to her offense or to a risk of future criminal conduct.id: 24330
Probation condition prohibiting weapon possession was vague and modified with a scienter requirement. The minor was convicted of robbery. The probation condition prohibiting him from possessing weapons was vague and the court added a scienter element clarifying a violation would require that he knowingly possess something constituting a weapon. id: 24229
The probation condition prohibiting possession of police surveillance equipment was improperly vague for not specifying the prohibited items. The probation condition prohibiting defendant’s possession or use of a police scanner or “surveillance equipment” is vague because it does not provide sufficient notice of what items are prohibited.id: 24130
Probation condition prohibiting defendant from being present in a place where someone possessed a weapon was unconstitutionally overbroad.The probation condition prohibiting defendant from being present where someone possessed a weapon was overbroad because it would prevent defendant from entering a courthouse or police station. It was modified to prohibit defendant from being present where a person illegally possessed a firearm, and from remaining in a place where she would have ready access to a firearm whether it was lawfully possessed or acquired. id: 24144
The Fifth Amendment prohibits the waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination as a condition of probation. The trial court erred by imposing a probation condition requiring that defendant waive “any privilege against self-incrimination” and participate in polygraph examinations as part of the program. However, a defendant may be required to participate in polygraph examinations to the extent the questions posed to him relate to the successful completion of the program, the crimes of which he was convicted, or related criminal behavior.id: 23741
Probation condition prohibiting defendant from dating or socializing with a person having physical custody of a minor was vague and overbroad in violation of the right to freedom of association. The trial court ordered that defendant (who was convicted of child molest offenses) not to date, socialize or form a romantic relationship with any person who has physical custody of a minor unless approved by the probation officer. However, the probation condition was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in violation of defendant’s right to freedom of association. id: 23743
Probation condition that defendant not possess sexually explicit or pornographic material was vague.The probation condition that defendant not possess pornographic or sexually explicit material was vague and modified to add a requirement that he knowingly possess the material.id: 23868
The trial court lacked the authority to issue a no-contact protective order as to defendant’s children who were not victims of his domestic violence offense. Defendant was convicted of corporal injury to a cohabitant. The trial court thereafter issued a protective order forbidding him to contact his son or stepdaughter for the next 10 years, except through counsel. However, that part of the protective order was vacated because his son and stepdaughter were not victims within the meaning of Penal Code section 136.2, subd.(i)(1) and 273.5, subd.(j). id: 23627
“Stay away” probation condition was ambiguous where it referred to “the victim” and there was more than one victim.Defendant was ordered to stay at least 100 yards from the victim. However, the condition was ambiguous because there was more than one victim. The matter was remanded to the trial court to eliminate the ambiguity.id: 23439
Probation conditions prohibiting defendant’s access to the internet and possession of pornography was modified to include a knowledge requirement.Defendant pled guilty to possession of child pornography. The probation condition restricting his access to the internet was modified to clarify that he would only violate that condition if he knowingly had access to the internet without the prior approval of his probation officer. Moreover, the condition prohibiting him from possessing or purchasing pornography on sexually explicit materials was modified to prohibit possession of such materials having been informed by a probation officer that they were pornographic or sexually explicit.id: 23261
Probation condition requiring that defendant take psychotropic medication was invalid as there was no medical showing that it was related to future criminality. Defendant was convicted of felony grand theft. The probation condition requiring that he take psychotropic medication was improper due to the lack of a medically-informed showing that the condition was reasonably related to future criminality.id: 23091
The trial court erred by imposing a no-gang-contact probation condition for a drug possessor with no gang ties. Defendant pled no contest to possessing methamphetamine. The offense had nothing to do with a gang and the record showed defendant had no prior gang affiliations or history. The trial court erred by imposing a no-gang-contact probation condition.id: 22938
A probationer cannot be punished for possessing alcohol or being in a place where it was sold absent proof of knowledge.Defendant pled guilty to a drunk driving offense and, as a condition of probation, was prohibited from drinking alcohol, possessing it or being in a place where it was the primary item sold. The condition was modified to add that defendant must commit the proscribed conduct knowingly.id: 22240
Probation condition prohibiting defendant from being adjacent to a school was vague and modified to prohibit him from being within 50 feet from the school. Defendant pled guilty to aggravated assault. The probation condition requiring him to stay away from an area which he knows or is told by his probation officer to be an area of gang activity was not unconstitutionally vague as there can be no violation absent proof that defendant knew of the nature of the area, possibly by learning it from his probation officer. However, the condition that he not be “adjacent to any school campus during school hours” was vague and overbroad because it may be difficult to determine exactly where a person is adjacent to the school. The condition was modified to prohibit defendant from being within 50 feet of any school campus during school hours.id: 22366
Probation conditions were overbroad because they failed to include a knowledge requirement.The probation conditions that defendant not possess pornography, associate with minors or marry someone with children under the age of 18 were all overbroad. The court modified the conditions to require that the actions be undertaken knowingly.id: 22391
Probation condition that defendant not associate with someone he “suspects” is a gang member was unconstitutionally vague. The probation condition that defendant not associate with someone he “suspects” to be a gang member was unconstitutionally vague. The term “suspect” is insufficiently precise for a court to determine whether a violation occurred, and fails to provide defendant with adequate notice of what is expected of him when he lacks knowledge that a person is a gang member.id: 21857
The Harvey rule applies to the imposition of probation conditions based on the facts of a dismissed charge.When, under a plea agreement, a defendant pleads guilty to one or more charges in exchange for dismissal of other charges, the trial court cannot, in placing conditions on probation, impose conditions that are based solely on the dismissed charges unless the defendant agreed to the term or unless there is a transactional relationship between the charges of which defendant pled and the facts of the dismissed charges. id: 21969
The probation condition restricting the minor’s freedom to approach or enter a courthouse was overbroad. The trial court placed the minor on probation after finding he came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because he possessed a knife on school grounds. The condition of probation restricting his freedom to approach or enter courthouses is unconstitutionally overbroad.id: 21811
Probation condition restricting defendant’s courthouse appearances was overbroad as it prevented activities unrelated to future criminality.As a condition of his probation, the defendant was prohibited from appearing at any court proceeding where he was not a party or a witness, and with his probation officer’s permission. The condition was overly broad and prevented activities unrelated to future criminality. The portion of the condition regarding the probation officer was also defective since it did not provide a standard for granting approval by the probation officer. id: 21391
Gang-related probation conditions were modified to include a knowledge requirement.The probation condition that defendant not associate with gang members was defective and modified to prevent him from associating with people he knows to be gang members. The same was true of the conditions that defendant avoid gang-related clothing or paraphernalia. The condition was modified to avoid items known to demonstrate an affiliation with the Nortenos gang. The gang-area prohibition was modified to prohibit visits to an area he knows has street gang related activity. The word “frequent” was removed from the condition as it is vague.id: 21390
Probation condition banning minor convicted of burglary from coming within 150 feet of a school was unreasonable. The minor was placed on probation after he and another youth were found to have burglarized a home. Neither the burglary nor the minor’s prior offenses occurred near a school yet when imposing probation, the court included a condition prohibiting the minor from coming within 150 feet of any school campus other than the school he attended. The condition was unreasonable because it was not related to his offense and there was no evidence showing it would serve a rehabilitative purpose. It was modified to prohibit him from visiting school grounds without notifying school authorities.id: 21713
Probation conditions were modified to prohibit knowing possession of weapons and property known to be stolen. Defendant argued two probation conditions - prohibiting him from possessing firearms and stolen property were vague and overbroad. The conditions were modified to prohibit him from possessing property he knows is stolen, and knowingly possessing firearms. The court addressed the issue without an objection in the trial court because it presented a pure question of constitutional law that was easily remedied on appeal.id: 21274
Probation condition was modified to prohibit defendant from associating with people known to him to be gang members.Minor argued the probation conditions related to his gang association are overbroad. The failure to object on this basis in the trial court did not forfeit the issue. The condition that he not associate with “known” gang members was changed to require the people are known by him to be gang members. The condition that he not frequent any areas of gang related activity was modified to prohibit him from visiting areas known by him to be a place of gang related activity. id: 21234
Probation condition that minor take all prescribed medications was modified to require that he take the drugs prescribed for depression and social anxiety disorder.The minor argued the probation condition requiring that he continue to take all prescribed medications was vague and overbroad. The condition was modified to require only that he continue taking medications prescribed for depression and societal anxiety disorder, as directed by his doctors.id: 21233
Probation condition preventing defendant from attending a court hearing or being near a courthouse was improper.Defendant pled guilty to second degree robbery. The probation condition which prohibited him from attending any court hearing or being within 500 feet of a courthouse where he was not a defendant or under subpoena was overboard and violated defendant’s right of access to public property. id: 21230
Probation condition limiting the juvenile’s ability to enter the United States was invalid. The juvenile admitted smuggling marijuana into the country. He is a U.S. citizen but lives in Mexico with his mother. As a condition of probation, the juvenile court ordered that he not enter the U.S. except to attend school, work or visit family. He was also ordered to notify his probation officer before entering the country. The first part of the order was invalid as it effectively banished the minor from the United States. The order was modified, limiting it to require the minor to notify his probation officer before entering the country.id: 21021
Probation condition was flawed for not requiring that defendant refrain from people “he knows” are gang members.The probation condition that defendant not associate with any known gang members may lack the requisite knowledge requirement. The condition was modified to prevent defendant from association with persons “he knows to be gang members or he knows to be associated with the East San Diego Gang.”id: 20977
The trial court violated an implicit term of the plea agreement by including drug conditions among the conditions of probation even though the only drug charge was dismissed as part of the agreement.Defendant pled guilty to a weapons charge in exchange for dismissal of a drug charge and imposition of probation. At sentencing, the court imposed weapon and drug-related probation conditions. The rule of People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 (which prohibits the negative consideration at sentencing of dismissed charges) applies to probation conditions. The matter was remanded to allow the court to consider reimposing the drug related conditions of probation based on facts other than those related to the dismissed drug charge, such as defendant' s background.
id: 18295
The probation condition requiring the probationer to take any and all medication prescribed by her doctor was vague and overbroad.Defendant pled no contest to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Among her probation conditions, she was barred from consuming alcohol and required to take any and all medication prescribed by her doctor. However, the latter condition was constitutionally vague and overbroad.id: 20872
Probation condition forbidding defendant from associating with persons designated by his probation officer was overly broad.Defendant was convicted of drug sales. The condition of his probation forbidding him from associating with persons designated by his probation officer was overly broad. On remand, the trial court was ordered to strike that probation condition or correct the defect using more precise language.id: 20488
Probation condition that the minor not associate with gang members requires an element of personal knowledge.The probation condition that the minor not associate with gang members was modified to include an element of personal knowledge of the gang member status of others.id: 20339
Overbroad probation conditions regarding associating with minors and possession of inappropriate materials were modified.Defendant pled guilty to indecent exposure with a prior conviction for the same offense. He argued two probation conditions were unconstitutionally vague, 1) that he not associate with people under 18 unless accompanied by an unrelated adult, and 2) that he not possess sexually stimulating material deemed inappropriate by the probation officer. The issue was not forfeited on appeal because it involves a question of law. The probation conditions were flawed and were modified. The first was modified to require that he know or reasonably should know the persons are under 18 before he associates with them. The second was modified to require that defendant was informed by the probation officer that the material he possessed was inappropriate.id: 19898
County regulation prohibiting probationers from leaving the county was flawed and a court is required to consider a defendant's particularized needs.As a condition of probation, defendant was bound by a county regulation prohibiting him from leaving the county for any purpose. He sought to have the restriction modified to allow him to drive to his job outside the county every day. The trial court erred by rejecting the claim based on the regulation, and was required to consider defendant's particular needs when addressing the issue.id: 19706
Minor's challenge to her probation condition as facially vague and overbroad presents a pure question of law and can be made for the first time on appeal. The minor sought to challenge the constitutionality of the probation condition that she not associate with anyone disapproved of by probation. The challenge was not forfeited despite the minor's failure to object on that ground at the time the condition was imposed by the juvenile court.id: 19496
Probation condition that the minor not associate with anyone disapproved of by probation was vague and overbroad. The minor argued the probation condition that prevented her from associating with anyone disapproved of by her probation officer was vague and overbroad. The condition was vague and overbroad as imposed by the juvenile court, but not when modified by the Court of Appeal to require the defendant have knowledge that the
probation officer disapproved of a particular associate.id: 19497
The juvenile court's imposition of a probation condition which banned travel to Mexico was overbroad. The minor admitted a grand theft allegation. The court's later
imposition of a probation condition which absolutely bans travel to Mexico was unconstitutionally overbroad and was modified to permit travel to Mexico with the consent of his probation officer if accompanied by his parents.id: 19321
Probation condition requiring officer's approval of residence was improper.The probation condition that appellant's residence be subject to his probation officer's approval, which was not proposed by the probation department, was improper.id: 13622
Probation condition restricting travel was improperly imposed by the probation officer.The condition restricting juvenile appellant's travel cannot support a probation violation because it was unilaterally imposed by the probation officer. The court alone has the power to modify probation by adding new terms.id: 13624
Probation condition proscribing alcohol use was not related to defendant's conviction of possession of methamphetamines.Defendant pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine. He was ordered, as a condition of probation, not to possess or consume alcoholic beverages nor to frequent places where such beverages were the chief item for sale. The condition was improper where there was no factual indication in the record that the proscribed behavior was reasonably related to the defendant's future criminal behavior.id: 13619
The imposition of joint and several liability on the probationary condition ordering restitution was unauthorized by law.As a condition of probation, defendant and his codefendant were ordered to make restitution to the victim in the amount of $4,000.00, with each defendant being jointly and severally liable for the restitution. The rehabilitative purpose of probation is not served when a defendant's probation conditions are dependent upon the actions of another. Furthermore, such condition is not sufficiently precise for the defendant to know what is required of him and is therefore void for vagueness.id: 13633
A failure to object to conditions of probation is not a waiver of a challenge to invalid conditions.The minor's failure to object to the conditions of his probation at the disposition hearing did not constitute a waiver of a challenge to invalid conditions.id: 13602
Court may not place a defendant in work furlough as a condition of probation.The court's order nominally placing defendant in the custody of the sheriff but ordering him to report to a noncontract work furlough facility was in excess of jurisdiction. The court may not place a defendant in work furlough as a condition of probation. Only the work furlough administrator has the authority to determine eligibility and placement and all private facilities must be under contract with the administrator.id: 13608
Probation condition prohibiting pregnancy was unlawful where the crime defendant committed did not involve child endangerment.Defendant was convicted of drug possession and as a condition of probation, the court advised her that she was not to get pregnant during the probationary term. The no pregnancy condition was impermissibly overbroad where the crimes which she committed did not endanger children, and there was no evidence before the court that any of her five children had been born addicted or born with any other ailment attributable to possession or use of drugs.id: 13618
Court erred in imposing reimbursement of attorney's fees as a condition of probation.The trial court erred in imposing reimbursement for attorney's fees as a condition of probation. Statutorily outlined procedure was not followed, nor was defendant's ability to pay ever determined.id: 13607
Forfeiture of defendant's truck was an improper probation condition because it was imposed to punish rather than rehabilitate defendant.Defendant pled no contest to grand theft of personal property and possession of burglar's tools. As a condition of probation the court ordered the forfeiture of defendant's truck to the county. Notwithstanding that the truck was used to arrive at the crime scene and contained the tools, the probation condition was improper because the purpose in imposing it was to punish defendant and the major goal of probation is rehabilitation.id: 13613
Probation condition that appellant not associate with any felons, ex-felons, users or sellers of narcotics was unconstitutionally overbroad.Probation condition that appellant not associate with any felons, ex-felons or users or sellers of narcotics was unconstitutionally overbroad because it limited his association with persons not known to him to be users and sellers of narcotics, felons and ex-felons. The probation condition was modified to provide that appellant is not to associate with persons he <i>knows</i> to be users or sellers of narcotics, felons or ex-felons.id: 13625
Probation condition requiring that defendant wear a T-shirt that read "I am on felony probation for theft" was invalid.Defendant was convicted of shoplifting beer from a supermarket. As a condition of probation he was required to wear a T-shirt bearing a bold, printed statement of his status as a felony theft probationer. The requirement applied whenever the probationer was outside his actual living quarters. The condition was unreasonably overbroad as it could adversely affect probationer's ability to carry on activities having no possible relationship to the offense for which he was convicted or to future criminality.id: 13623
Probation condition banishing the minor to Iran for two years was improper.As a condition of the minor's probation he was banished to Iran for a two-year period. Notwithstanding the good intentions of all the concerned parties in the case (the order followed a request from his parents in Iran that he be permitted to live with them), the probation condition lacked any reasonable nexus to the minor's present or future criminality, violated his constitutional rights of travel, association and assembly, and constituted a de facto deportation. There is no reasonable basis for sustaining a condition requiring a minor to absent himself from the country of his residence.id: 13617
Orders to pay attorney fees and probation costs may not be conditions of probation.Unlike orders for restitution and restitution fines which are statutorily required to be included as conditions of probation, attorney fees and costs are not. Probation may not be conditioned on payment of either sum.id: 16167
Probation condition regarding gang association was overbroad in prohibiting association with people not known by defendant to be gang members.Defendant challenged the probation condition proscribing gang association and indicia. The condition was not unlawful as defendant was a member of a gang known for its criminal activity, and the probation condition promoted the goals of rehabilitation and public safety. However, the condition was overbroad to the extent that it prohibited association with persons not known to be gang members and prohibited defendant from displaying indicia not known by him to be gang related. The probation condition was to be appropriately modified.id: 16169
The required prospective waiver of section 2900.5 credits was not a reasonable probation condition and constituted an unauthorized sentence.Defendant challenged the requirement that, as a condition of probation, he waive his right to all credit that may be accrued under Penal Code section 2900.5 against a suspended prison sentence. Requiring defendant to waive the credit was not a reasonable probation condition because the requirement bore no relationship to him, his offense, or his past record, and served only to enable the court to impose a longer sentence than authorized by the Penal Code.id: 16171
Court erred in ordering DNA samples following theft conviction but the error was harmless where the probation condition also applied to defendants who are subject to the sex offender registration requirement.After he was convicted of grand theft, the trial court ordered defendant to provide blood and saliva samples as a condition of probation. The court relied on Penal Code section 296.1, subds. (c) and (d) as authority for this condition. However, section 296.1, subds. (c) and (d) did not permit imposition of this condition of probation because the current crime of grand theft was not a qualifying offense under the DNA Act. Nevertheless, the error was harmless since another portion of the DNA Act requires the provision of blood and saliva samples for persons, like defendant, who are subject to the sex offender registration requirements.id: 15077
Minor could challenge probation condition for the first time on appeal since the challenge was constitutional and involved a pure question of law.In In re Tanya B. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1, the court held a minor may challenge probation conditions for the first time on appeal. In the present case, the court overruled Tanya B., and held that to preserve for appeal the issue of the reasonableness of a probation condition, a minor must object in juvenile court, unless an exception applies. However, an exception applied in the present case where the minor argued the probation conditions prohibiting "delinquent behavior" and gang association were unconstitutional in that they were vague and violated due process. These were pure questions of law that could be resolved without reference to the sentencing record.id: 16559
Juvenile court erred by requiring that the minor maintain a "B" average as a condition of probation.The trial court abused its discretion by ordering the minor to maintain a "B" grade average after finding he committed second degree robbery. The record showed compliance with the requirement was beyond the minor's capacity and bore no relationship to present or future criminality.id: 17572
Parole condition prohibiting convicted child molester's use of the Internet was unreasonable.Defendant was convicted of child molestation, sent to prison and later released on parole. His offense did not involve a computer. The parole condition prohibiting his use of computers and the Internet was unreasonable. id: 17964
Imposition of probation conditions under Penal Code section 1203.097, governing cases involving domestic violence, violated ex post facto principles where the offenses were committed before the statute was enacted.Penal Code section 1203.097 increased the measure of punishment from what was in effect on the date of defendant's offenses by removing the trial court's discretion to impose a shorter term and by attaching the mandatory 36 month term, a community service condition and a $400 payment. As such, it violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws.id: 19126
The court erred by requiring as a condition of probation, a prospective waiver of credit for time spent in residential drug rehabilitation.The trial court erred by adhering to a self-described standard practice of requiring, as a condition of probation, a prospective waiver of credit for time spent in residential drug rehabilitation. The court was apparently troubled by the possibility that a defendant could enter a program less onerous than jail, drop out, and receive credit as if he or she had been incarcerated. However, a judge may not categorically reject a legislative policy determination out of simple disagreement with it.id: 13575
Restitution was an invalid condition of probation where the victim did not suffer or failed to claim any compensable loss.Where the crime results in a victim but that victim does not suffer or fails to claim any compensable loss, an order of restitution to either the victim or the Restitution Fund is improper and no condition of probation providing for restitution may be made under the express language of Penal Code section 1203.04. However, this did not relieve appellant of his restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4, subdivision (b).id: 13484
The probation condition that the minor not associate with gang members was overbroad and was modified to include "known" gang members.The probation condition that the minor not associate with gang members was overbroad and violated due process. The condition was modified to narrow its reference to persons known to the probationer to be associated with a gang.id: 16561
Trial court cannot punish conduct which amounts to a violation of a probation condition as a contempt of court.In addition to revoking probation, the trial court may not punish conduct which amounts to a violation of a condition of probation as a contempt of court pursuant to Penal Code section 166, subd. (4).id: 10819
Updated 3/7/2024Probation condition limiting juvenile’s use of his computer, the Internet, and social media sites was not facially overbroad. The minor was found to have committed lewd acts upon a younger child. He challenged the imposition of a probation condition that imposed limits on his use of computers, the Internet and social networking websites. To the extent that the claim may be considered a facial, rather than an “as applied” challenge, it may be reviewed on appeal without an objection in the trial court. The condition while difficult, is not unconstitutional in every potential application, and therefore is not facially overbroad. id: 26275
Updated 3/7/2024Electronic search probation condition was reasonable for defendant who stole electronics devices to buy drugs.Defendant pled guilty to stealing cell phones and other electronic devices so that he could buy drugs. The probation condition allowing a warrantless search of his electronic deices was reasonable and not overbroad. Contrary to the prosecution's argument, defendant was not required to obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to challenge the probation condition on appeal.id: 26289
Updated 3/6/2024Probation condition requiring the minor to submit to warrantless searches of his electronics was not overbroad where he had used his cell phone to record sex acts with another minor.The minor used his phone to record sex acts between himself and Jane Doe who was also a minor. He later threatened to show others the video if she did not give him money. He pled guilty to possession of child pornography and extortion. The probation condition requiring him to submit all electronics devices for warrantless search and to provide passwords was not constitutionally overbroad given the direct relationship between the minor’s offenses and his use of an electronic device.id: 26628
Updated 3/5/2024Alcohol-related and anger management probation conditions were reasonable in light of defendant’s prior problems.Defendant pled guilty to possessing a concealed weapon. He argued the imposition of alcohol-related conditions, and an anger management program were unreasonable probation conditions. However, given defendant’s history of drug use, the alcohol related conditions were reasonably related to preventing future crimes. The anger management condition was also reasonable in light of a previous incident where defendant was found swinging a machete in a public park.id: 26682
Updated 3/5/2024The record showed the court intended to impose the probation condition as described in its oral pronouncement rather than as described in its written order.The juvenile court’s written order regarding a probation condition prohibiting the possession of sexually explicit materials, conflicted with the court’s oral pronouncement. The record indicates the court’s motion was a stated in the oral pronouncement.id: 26769
Updated 3/5/2024Probation condition requiring psychological evaluations was not vague and did not improperly delegate the court’s discretion to the probation officer.The probation condition allowing for psychiatric evaluations as directed by the minor’s probation officer were not unconstitutionally vague, and did not improperly delegate the court’s discretion to the probation officer. Moreover, requiring the minor to submit to a polygraph as part of an assessment was not improper.id: 26770
Updated 3/4/2024The trial court did not err in ordering the sale of property as a condition of probation.Defendant pled guilty to three Municipal Code violations. He argued the order directing that he sell one of his properties was invalid because it was not specified as a potential punishment in the Municipal Code. However, the order to sell the property was a condition of probation, and so the fact that the Municipal Code does not provide for sale of property as a punishment was irrelevant.id: 27110
Updated 3/4/2024Probation condition prohibiting minor from a sexual touching of another person was not unconstitutionally vague.The probation condition imposed by the juvenile court prohibiting the unconsented sexual touching of another person was sufficiently definite to deflect the claim that it was unconstitutionally vague.id: 27624
Updated 2/26/2024The warrantless search of electronic devices probation condition was reasonably related to further criminality following defendant’s identity theft conviction and it was not overbroad and did not violate the privilege against self-incrimination. Defendant admitted the identity theft and was placed on probation which included a condition that he submit his electronic storage devices and email/Internet accounts to warrantless searches. The electronic search condition was reasonably related to future criminality even though the current identify theft did not involve the use of electronic devices. Neither was the search condition improper under the appropriate test balancing interests to determine reasonableness (rather than the “closely tailored” test used by some courts). Finally, the condition does not violate defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.id: 26269
Updated 2/26/2024The electronic device probation search condition did not violate the ECPA. Defendant argued the electronics device search condition attached to his probation violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) because he did not give specific consent to access his electronic storage devices. However, there is no requirement that a defendant consent to specific government entities. In any event, there is no legislative intent suggesting the ECPA would affect electronic device search conditions. id: 26270
Updated 2/26/2024Electronic search condition was overly broad and remanded to allow a more narrowly tailored version.The minor was found to have committed burglaries. The probation condition permitting searches of his electronic devices was overly broad. The case was remanded to permit a more narrowly tailored condition allowing a search of any medium of communication reasonably likely to reveal whether the minor is associating with prohibited persons.id: 26411
Updated 2/7/2024Report-contact condition of mandatory supervision was not vague.The condition of mandatory supervision requiring the defendant to report his contacts with law enforcement was not unconstitutionally vague, as it would indicate to a reasonable person that he was not required to report casual, random interactions with police.id: 27160
Probation condition requiring minor’s consent to search electronic devices was reasonable in attempting to limit his online access to racial hatred.The minor participated in a fist fight at school, and when his teacher tried to break it up, he used a racial slur. He admitted that he committed a disturbing the peace on school grounds. The juvenile court’s probation conditions included a requirement that he consent to a search of his electronic devices that was designed to limit his access to racial hatred on the internet. The condition was reasonable and not overbroad.id: 26133
Probation condition prohibiting the minor from bragging about his battery on social media did not violate his First Amendment rights.The minor was found to have committed a battery with serious bodily injury. The probation condition prohibiting him from discussing his case on social media was not overbroad and did not violate his First Amendment rights.id: 25993
Probation condition authorizing a search of defendant’s electronic devices did not violate his right to privacy.Defendant argued the probation condition allowing a search of his electronic devices violated his right to privacy because it had a much greater impact on his privacy rights than a search of his person. However, the condition was necessary here to ensure compliance with his other probation conditions and to protect the public, including vulnerable children.id: 25645
Probation condition allowing warrantless search of defendant’s electronic devices was not improper.Defendant was convicted of possessing methamphetamine for sale. He argued the probation condition allowing warrantless searches of his electronic devices was unreasonable. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the condition did not allow unlimited searches of defendant’s devices and was confined to various categories such as text messages and voicemails, etc. The search condition was otherwise reasonable and not vague or overbroad.id: 25615
Minor’s probation condition requiring adult supervision was not unconstitutionally vague.The minor argued the probation condition allowing him to travel in a car with another minor only if accompanied by a “responsible adult” was unconstitutionally vague. However, he committed a robbery with a juvenile. It was sufficiently clear that the “the responsible adult” the probation condition described was to act in a supervision capacity.id: 25234
The mandatory supervision condition requiring defendant to obtain written permission before leaving the state did not violate his right to travel.Defendant argued the condition of his mandatory supervision requiring written permission from his probation officer before leaving the state violated his constitutional right to travel, and thus his right to work. However, the condition was reasonable and it did not forbid travel. It was narrowly tailored to require written permission before leaving the state.id: 25041
Requiring polygraph exams as a condition of probation didn’t violate the Fifth Amendment since defendant retained the right not to have incriminating answers used against him in future proceedings.Defendant was convicted of certain sex offenses and placed on probation. The probation condition requiring him to submit to polygraph examinations as part of a sex offender management program did not impermissibly infringe on his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination because he retained the right not to have any incriminating answers used against him in a pending or future criminal proceeding.id: 24922
Probation conditions prohibiting defendant from associating with, or living near, minors were modified by adding a scienter requirement. The probation condition prohibiting defendant from having contact with minors was infirm and modified to include a requirement that he know the individual was a minor. Likewise the condition that he not reside “near” a place where children congregate was modified to replace “near” with 2000 feet and included a knowledge requirement.id: 24923
The probation condition requiring defendant to submit to warrantless searches of his computers and social media was reasonable given that he communicated with his 15 year-old victim via social media and had sex with her while already on probation.The 22 year-old defendant was placed on probation for having unlawful sexual intercourse with a 17 year-old girl. He then met a 15 year-old, exchanged text messages and suggested he wanted to have sex with her. He later admitted having sex with her. He was placed on formal probation that included 381 days of custody. The probation condition requiring him to submit to warrantless searches of his computers and recordable media was reasonable given that he communicated with the victim via social media, and reoffended with the younger victim while already on probation.id: 24925
Probation condition was modified to prohibit possession of items the minor knows to be drug paraphernalia. The minor admitted to resisting arrest and falsifying a report. The probation condition that she not possess drug paraphernalia was modified to state that she not possess any item that she knows is drug paraphernalia.id: 24850
The probation condition requiring that the minor obey all regulations of the Electronic Monitoring Program was vague where the program was standardless and without content. The probation condition requiring the minor to obey all rules and regulations of the Electronics Monitoring Program was unconstitutionally vague because the program was standardless and without content. The provision was modified to specify that the minor obey all rules of the program as posted on the probation department’s website, as approved by the court, and as explained by her probation officer.id: 24852
Provision forbidding defendant from living close to a school or park could not be used as a probation condition. The trial court improperly imposed Penal Code section 3003.5, subd.(b) and its residency restrictions (forbidding defendant from residing within 2000 feet of a school, park, or place where children gather) because that provision only applies to registered sex offenders who are on parole. It could not properly be used as a probation condition.id: 24858
The probation condition prohibiting defendant from entering any Home Depot in California or its parking lot did not infringe on the defendant’s right to travel.The state may place a criminal offender on probation, subject to a condition that he or she stay away from the victim (in this case Home Depot), without contravening the defendant’s guaranteed right to travel.id: 24842
The juvenile court did not err by imposing the electronic device search condition for the minor who admitted a burglary.The minor was found to have committed a second degree burglary. The probation condition requiring him to submit his electronic devices to search upon the request of his probation officer was reasonably related to his future criminality and was not overbroad. Moreover, the condition did not pose a risk of unlawful eavesdropping under Penal Code section 632.id: 24824
Probation condition barring possession of guns and illegal drugs includes an implicit requirement of “knowing” possession.Defendant was prohibited from possessing firearms or illegal drugs as a condition of probation. He argued the conditions were vague and sought modification of the terms to prohibit “knowing” possession. However, the modification was unnecessary since the probation conditions already include an implicit requirement of knowing possession.id: 25104
Probation condition precluding defendant from being “adjacent to any school campus” was modified to prevent him from being within 50 feet of any school campus.Defendant was convicted of unlawful weapon possession. He challenged, as vague, the probation condition that required he “not be adjacent to any school campus during school hours” unless he had permission. The condition was modified to specify that he maintain a 50-foot distance from any school.id: 25535
The electronics search condition was not related to the vandalism convictions, but it was reasonably related to preventing future criminality. Defendant was convicted of felony vandalism and admitted the gang enhancement. He argued the probation condition allowing warrantless searches of his electronic devices was improper. While it is true that the probation condition had nothing to do with defendant’s conviction, the issue was reasonably related to preventing future criminality, and so it was valid.id: 25508
Probation condition requiring that defendant maintain a residence approved by her probation officer was not overbroad and did not interfere with her right to travel.Defendant was convicted of possessing methamphetamine for sale. The probation condition requiring her to maintain a residence approved by her probation officer was not unconstitutionally overbroad and did not violate her right to travel or freedom of association.id: 25485
A probation condition requiring the defendant to “stay away” from a location without specifying a distance is not unconstitutionally vague.Defendant was convicted of stalking, and as a condition of probation was ordered to stay away from the Apple Computer campus in Cupertino. He argued the condition was unconstitutionally vague because it did not specify a distance. However, an order to “stay away” from a specified location is a simple command slated in plain language. It was not improperly vague.id: 25475
Electronic device search probation condition was reasonably related to future criminality for defendant convicted of domestic abuse. Defendant was convicted of domestic abuse, and as a condition of probation was required to submit to a warrantless search of his electronic devices. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the probation condition was reasonably related to future criminality, and was not improper for that purpose.id: 25413
Probation condition requiring defendant to give cell phone passcode doesn’t violate the Fifth Amendment because probation is not a criminal proceeding.Defendant argued that because the electronic storage device search condition implicitly requires him to provide usernames and passwords, which are testimonial in nature, the condition violates his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. However, the condition need not be stricken here since a state may validly insist on answers to even incriminating questions in administering its probation system, as long as it knows the answers may not be used in a criminal proceeding.id: 25417
Electronics-search probation condition was reasonable and not overbroad.Defendant pled guilty to attempted robbery and aggravated assault. The electronics-search probation condition was reasonable because it will allow the probation department to effectively supervise defendant. The condition is constitutional because the state’s need to monitor defendant’s conduct and protect public safety outweighs the infringement on his privacy interests, and there were no facts showing defendant’s electronics contained the type of private information meriting heightened protection.id: 25363
Probation condition authorizing a warrantless search of defendant’s “property” and “personal effects” allowed the search of her cell phone.Defendant was on probation and subject to a general search condition that allowed authorities to search her “property” and “personal effects” without a warrant. She argued the scope of that search condition did not extend to a warrantless search of her cell phone. However, a reasonable person at the time of the search would have understood that a search of the cell phone was within the scope of the search condition. The search did not violate the Fourth Amendment or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.id: 25356
Minor forfeited challenge to probation condition allowing a search of his property by failing to object in the juvenile court. The minor argued the probation condition allowing police to search his property was unconstitutionally vague because it did not give sufficient notice of the types of property subject to the search. However, the minor forfeited the issue by failing to object in the juvenile court. He argued the condition would have been improper if it included electronic devices, but he failed to ask for clarification below.id: 25235
The probation condition authorizing warrantless searches of the minor’s property applies only to tangible property and not to electronic devices.The minor argued the probation condition allowing warrantless searches of his person, property or vehicle was unconstitutionally vague because it allowed searches of his electronic devices and data. However, reasonably construed, the search condition applies only to tangible physical property, and not to electronic data.id: 25237
Probation condition prohibiting the minor from participating in “gang-related activities” was not unconstitutionally vague. The minor argued the probation condition forbidding him from participating in any gang-related activities was vague because the activities it prohibits are neither specified nor obvious. However, the scope of the condition was readily ascertainable. Gang-related activity is activity facilitating or involving the commission of crimes for the benefit of, in association with, a criminal street gang. The phrase does not apply to lawful activities that take place where gang members are present.id: 25241
Probation condition prohibiting the minor from being on a school campus unless enrolled was not unconstitutionally vague.The minor was found to have committed grand theft from a person. The probation condition preventing him from being on a school campus unless he was enrolled was not unconstitutionally vague as it specified the areas he was to avoid.id: 25221
The trial court did not err by imposing the condition of probation that required the probation officer’s approval of defendant’s residence.The trial court did not err by ordering, as a condition of probation, that defendant reside at a residence approved by his probation officer, and not move without the probation officer’s approval. The term didn’t violate the defendant’s constitutional right to travel or freedom of association. It was reasonable in light of defendant’s drug and mental health history, and it allowed the probation officer to ensure defendant wasn’t living in a place where drugs were used or sold.id: 25163
The probation condition requiring defendant to stay away from Target stores did not improperly restrict his right to travel.Defendant was convicted of petty theft with a prior. The probation condition requiring him to stay away from all Target stores and Target parking lots did not improperly restrict defendant’s right to travel. He remains free to move about his community, the city and state. The restriction was too minimal to implicate his constitutional right to travel.id: 25164
Sex offender management program as a probation condition was not a direct consequence of the plea so no pre-plea advisement was required.The trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw a no contest plea to human trafficking after finding the probation conditions described in Penal Code section 1203.067 (primarily a sex offender management program) were not direct consequences of the plea, and a pre-plea advisement was not required. The probation condition was not an automatic requirement of the plea. Moreover, defendant failed to show prejudice - that the program in question would have caused him to forego his plea.id: 25116
Requiring defendant to provide the password to his cell phone as a condition of his probation was not unreasonable. Defendant was convicted of drug possession. He argued the probation condition requiring him to submit to a cell phone search and provide his password was unreasonable. The condition requiring him to provide his password was reasonable since he used his cell phone to buy the drugs in the present case. Moreover, the condition was not vague by referring to “electronic searches” as that term is commonly applied to searches of cell phones and computers.id: 25126
Probation condition requiring the minor to allow warrantless searches of his electronics was constitutional given his offense of recording sex with another minor and using it for extortion.The minor recorded himself having sex with a female minor and extorted her by threatening to disclose the recordings to other students. The probation condition requiring him to submit all electronic devices under his control to warrantless search by a probation officer and to provide passwords necessary to access those devices was not overbroad given the direct relationship between the offense and the use of electronic devices.id: 25088
Defendant forfeited the challenge that the probation condition banning him from seeing his probationer girlfriend was unreasonable by failing to object when it was imposed. Defendant was on probation for a sex offender registration violation. One condition of his probation barred him from associating with other probationers. He associated with a probationer, his girlfriend, and was found to be in violation. He argued he couldn’t reasonably have been found to violate his probation by seeing his girlfriend. However, defendant forfeited his challenge by failing to object to that condition on reasonableness grounds when it was imposed.id: 24911
Probation condition restricting a minor’s use of electronics or requiring that he submit them for search was proper for the minor who admitted to molesting children. (425)(810) The minor admitted to annoying or molesting a child under the age of 18. The court did not err by imposing a condition of probation restricting his use of electronics or requiring the submission of those electronics for search because of the connection between child molestation and digital child pornography or online sexual material.id: 24774
Probation condition that the minor not possess a “weapon” was not vague or overbroad.The probation condition prohibiting the minor from possessing any “weapon ... or other deadly or dangerous weapon” is not vague as it prohibits possession of items designed to be used as weapons or other items intended to be used as weapons.id: 24504
The probation condition prohibiting the minor from possessing drugs was not vague or overbroad.The probation condition that the minor not possess or use “drugs” was not vague or overbroad. The prohibition against possessing drugs or “other controlled substances” made it clear the prohibited “drugs” are limited to drugs that are controlled substances.id: 24505
Electronics search probation condition was proper for a minor with serious substance abuse and mental health issues.The juvenile court’s probation condition requiring a minor to submit her electronics including passwords to warrantless searches by the probation and law enforcement was reasonable and constitutional even though the crime adjudicated was an assault on the defendant’s mother. The minor was a substance abuser and truant with serious mental health issues and the search condition was reasonably related to future criminality. The condition was also not overbroad under the circumstances.id: 24590
Probation condition prohibiting the minor from associating with people not approved by his probation officer was constitutional.The probation condition prohibiting the minor from associating with people not approved by his probation officer and parents was not impermissibly vague or overbroad. id: 21299
Probation conditions preceding possession or control of guns or drugs were sufficiently precise and didn’t need to be modified with a knowledge requirement because the mens rea for probation conditions precluded the finding of unwitting violations.Defendant argued the probation conditions that he not own, possess or control a firearm, and that he not possess or control illegal drugs were unconstitutionally vague. However, the conditions were sufficiently precise and did not need to be modified to add a knowledge requirement because the mens rea generally applicable to probation conditions precludes the finding of unwitting violations.id: 24096
Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to challenge conditions of mandatory supervision where such a challenge might have resulted in more time in custody. Defendant argued the trial court erred by imposing mandatory supervision conditions requiring him to submit to psychiatric counseling, and release confidential mental health information. However, defendant forfeited the claims by failing to object to the imposition of either condition. Defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object in light of the valid tactical reason that there was little to be gained here by arguing those points and much to be lost given his exposure to more time in custody.id: 23993
The state may not require the waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination as a condition of probation set forth in section 1203.067, subd.(b)(3).Penal Code section 1203.067 requires any person placed on probation for a registerable sex offense to waive the privilege against self-incrimination and waive the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The condition requiring a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination violates the Fifth Amendment. The provision requiring waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege is constitutional provided it is narrowly construed to require waiver only insofar as necessary to enable communication between the sex offender management professional and the supervisory probation officer.id: 23552
The trial court properly imposed sex offender probation conditions that required defendant to waive his privilege against self-incrimination and the psychotherapist-patient privilege.Defendant pled no contest to two counts of lewd conduct with minors. The trial court granted probation and imposed sex offender probation conditions under Penal Code section 1203.067(b) that included waiving his privilege against self-incrimination while participating in polygraph exams, and waiving his psychotherapist-patient privilege allowing communication between his therapist and probation officer. The provision requiring a waiver of the privilege against self incrimination did not violate the 5th Amendment and was not otherwise improper. And the waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege was not invalid because it was “coerced.” id: 23533
Defendant forfeited the challenge to the probation condition prohibiting Internet use without prior approval by failing to object in the trial court.Defendant, who pled guilty to two counts of lewd acts with minors, argued that trial court erred by imposing a probation condition prohibiting him from using the Internet without prior approval. However, the issue was not cognizable on appeal because defendant failed to raise it in the trial court. id: 23604
Probation condition requiring defendant to report to a local police gang detail was appropriate even though his offense was not gang related.Defendant pled guilty to resisting an officer. He objected to a probation condition requiring that he report to a local police gang detail because his crime was not gang related. However, he was not required to register as a gang member, and given his lengthy history of gang related crimes as a juvenile, the probation condition was appropriate. The other probation condition prohibiting defendant’s presence in a courthouse was modified to prevent his presence at trials involving other gang members. id: 23605
The no-contact probation condition was not vague or overbroad.As a condition of his probation, defendant was ordered to have no contact with three people. The condition was not vague or overly broad because the court’s comments indicated he could not knowingly violate the condition. That is, there would be no violation if he went to the location where the others were present without his knowing.id: 23630
The trial court did not err by imposing probation conditions that defendant provide passwords to all electronic devices and social media sites. Defendant pled guilty to criminal threats, resisting arrest and admitted a gang allegation. The trial court did not err by imposing a probation condition that required him to provide passwords for all of his electronic devices and social media sites, and allow warrantless searches of the sites at any time.id: 23720
The “reasonably should know” language in a probation condition is not unconstitutionally vague.A probation condition is not unconstitutionally vague when it prohibits an adult convicted of possessing a controlled substance from associating with certain types of persons “you know, or reasonably should know” are drug users, probationers, or parolees. An “actual knowledge” requirement is not constitutionally mandated.id: 23400
The constructive knowledge element in the probation condition was not vague.As a condition of probation, defendant was precluded from associating with anyone he knew, or had reason to know, were gang members. Other conditions had a similar constructive knowledge element. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the constructive knowledge element in the probation conditions did not render them unconstitutionally vague. id: 23437
Scienter element was implicit in probation conditions prohibiting the possession of weapons or using controlled substances. Defendant was prohibited from possessing weapons and from using controlled substances. While these probation conditions did not state a knowledge element, scienter is implied. However, a knowledge element should be added to cure concerns about a prohibition in the use or possession of “intoxicants” which is susceptible to different interpretations. id: 23438
GPS monitoring may be proper condition of the minor truant’s probation.In appropriate circumstances such as where a ward continues a pattern of truancy and violates curfew, GPS monitoring may be an appropriate condition of probation for a Welfare and Institution’s Code section 601 ward.id: 23376
The trial court did not err in restricting, as a condition of probation, defendant’s medical use of marijuana.Defendant was convicted of possession of marijuana for sale and other offenses. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by banning, as a condition of probation, defendant’s use of medical marijuana, even though authorized under the Compassionate Use Act. There was abundant evidence in the record that defendant used his CUA authorization as a front for illegal marijuana sales, partly carried out while he was armed in a public park. And there was no evidence of an overwhelming medical need.id: 22950
The juvenile court did not err by imposing blood and breath testing as a condition of the minor’s probation.The minor argued the trial court erred by imposing a probation condition requiring that he submit to blood and breath tests for the presence of drugs and alcohol because Welfare and Institutions Code section 729.3 provides only for urine testing, thereby implying the exclusion of testing by other means. However, the enactment of section 729.3 was not intended to affect the court’s discretion under section 730 to impose blood or breath testing as a condition of probation.id: 22964
Knowledge was implied in probation condition prohibiting defendant from possessing or using deadly weapons.Defendant was convicted of attempted second degree robbery. The probation condition prohibiting him from owning, possessing or using dangerous or deadly weapons did not have to be modified to include a knowledge requirement because knowledge was “manifestly implied.”id: 22996
Probation condition that probation officer approve the residence did not violate defendant’s constitutional right to travel.Defendant pled guilty to drug possession offenses. The probation condition limiting her to a residence approved by her probation officer did not violate her constitutional right to travel and freedom of association. id: 22816
Any problem with vague probation condition prohibiting defendant from being in the presence of minors was harmless where he actively associated with children in the swimming pool.Defendant was convicted of committing a lewd act on a child. He argued the probation condition prohibiting him from being in the presence of minors was vague and overbroad and a properly drafted probation condition would have prevented him from associating with children. However, any error in drafting the probation condition was harmless where defendant was clearly associating with several children in the swimming pool as he swam with the children, splashed them with water and spoke to them. id: 22302
The firearm prohibition probation condition contained an implicit knowledge requirement.The trial court ordered, as a condition of probation, that defendant not possess or control any firearm for the rest of his life pursuant to Penal Code sections 12021 and 12316. Defendant argued the condition lacked a scienter requirement. However, the statutes described include an implicit knowledge requirement and there was no need to modify the probation condition.id: 22110
Defendant forfeited the challenge to the probation condition that he seek employment even though he was a student.Defendant argued the trial court erred by requiring him to seek and maintain employment as a condition of his probation because he was a student at the time of sentencing. However, defendant forfeited the issue by failing to object at sentencing.id: 22108
Probation condition requiring defendant report his income and expenses as required by the probation officer was proper. Defendant was convicted of burglary. Contrary to his claim, the probation condition requiring him to submit a record of income and expenditures to the probation officer as directed, was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Moreover, the condition was authorized under Penal Code section 1203.1, subd.(j).id: 22410
The trial court did not err by imposing the condition of probation that prohibits defendant from possessing marijuana, even for medical use.Defendant was convicted of cultivating marijuana and possessing it for sale. He challenged the validity of a probation condition which prohibited his use of medical marijuana. However, even though possession of marijuana for medical use is not conduct that is unlawful, the trial court could nevertheless prohibit such possession as a condition of defendant’s probation.id: 22569
Trial court should not check off conditions on a preprinted form when imposing probation. A trial court may err by checking off probation conditions on a preprinted form. Thought must be given in each case to the specific language of each condition imposed to make sure that each condition is applicable to the offender.id: 21920
Probation conditions restricting Internet access for juvenile convicted of gang related crimes were reasonable except for the prohibition which banned use of an Internet enabled computer.The minor's probation condition prohibited him from participating in social networking on the Internet, using Internet-enabled computers, and using the Internet without parental or school supervision. These conditions were part of a preprinted form that was not intended to be used in all gang-related cases. The first and third provisions properly limit the minor's use of the Internet in ways designed to minimize the temptation to contact gang friends. The second condition which prohibited access to Internet-enabled computers conflicts with the others. That condition was modified to prohibit possession, rather than use of an Internet-enabled computer.id: 21919
Probation condition was modified to require the probation officer to list the "gang area" the minor needed to avoid. The probation condition prohibiting the minor from being in areas known by him for "gang related activity" was improperly vague even with the knowledge requirement since it did not list areas he could not frequent. The condition was modified to allow the probation officer to notify the minor of the areas he needs to avoid.id: 21918
Probation condition prohibiting minor from associating with people disapproved by his parents and probation officer was vague. The probation condition prohibiting the minor from associating with people disapproved of by his probation officer and parents was unconstitutionally vague in that it did not give him prior notice of the people whom he was prohibiting from associating. id: 21917
Minor could only be prohibited from being present in an area where he knew firearms were present. The probation condition prohibiting the minor's presence where weapons or firearms exist was vague and modified to include a personal knowledge requirement.id: 21914
Probation condition prohibiting the possession of cell phones or other portable communications devices did not violate the First Amendment. The probation condition prohibiting the minor from possessing a cell phone or pager was not overly broad and did not violate his First Amendment rights. He remained free to express himself through less sophisticated means such as a landline. id: 21916
Probation condition prohibiting minor from acquiring new tattoos was not improper. A probation condition for the minor found to have committed a gang-related offense prohibited him from obtaining new tattoos. He argued that was an overbroad restriction on his First Amendment freedom of expression, and that the condition would be unenforceable when he turned 18 when he would be legally entitled to get tattoos. However, the condition was proper as it helps steer wards away from gang appearance and gang identity.id: 21915
The trial court did not err by imposing a probation condition barring defendant’s use of medical marijuana.Defendant was on probation for drug possession offenses and when stopped for a traffic violation was found with two pounds of marijuana in his car. The prosecution used the offense to revoke his probation. Probation was reinstated. Defendant argued that, as a matter of law, the court could not impose a probation condition barring the use of doctor-recommended medical marijuana. However, the condition was appropriate under the circumstances.id: 21473
The probation condition that the minor’s parents participate in his school program was not invalid. The juvenile court did not err by imposing as a condition of probation the requirement that the minor’s parents participate in his school program. This involves activity connected directly to the minor. It does not require the parents to undertake activity that does not include the minor, and does not subject him to probation violation sanctions based on his parents failure to participate in the program.id: 21588
The trial court properly imposed domestic violence probation conditions even after the charge was dismissed and the Harvey rule does not apply to probation conditions. Defendant pled guilty to resisting an officer and the corporal injury to a spouse charge was dismissed. Defendant argued on appeal that the trial court improperly imposed probation conditions addressing domestic violence since the court dismissed that count and there was no Harvey waiver in the plea agreement. However, the Harvey rule (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754) does not apply to probation conditions and the domestic violence probation conditions were valid in light of the victim’s statement coupled with the officer’s observations.id: 21235
Probation condition prohibiting the minor from possessing a “dangerous or deadly” weapon was not unconstitutionally vague. The minor was found to have committed a robbery. The probation condition prohibiting him from possessing any “dangerous or deadly weapon” was sufficiently precise for him to know what was required.id: 21232
Probation condition prohibiting the minor from associating with known probationers was valid.Minor was found to have committed a misdemeanor battery. He argued the probation condition forbidding him from associating with persons he knows to be on probation was constitutionally overbroad. However, the condition was valid where it was related to the goal of promoting rehabilitation and the minor’s first and only juvenile offense resulted from his presence at a party where a juvenile mob fought with an alleged gang member.id: 21231
Requirement that the minor wear a GPS monitoring device as a condition of his probation was proper.The minor argued the juvenile court disposition order conditioning his probation on the requirement that he wear a global positioning system (GPS) device infringed on his right to privacy and equal protection. However, GPS monitoring is authorized for adult probation and is therefore permissible for juvenile probationers. It was appropriate in light of the minor’s truancy problems and curfew. Moreover, the GPS monitoring was a less harsh alternative to out-of-home placement at a juvenile camp.id: 20871
The trial court did not err by ordering hit and run defendant to pay for the victim’s hospital and funeral bills as a condition of probation. Defendant argued the trial court erred in ordering, as a condition of probation, that defendant pay the costs of the hit and run victim’s hospitalization and subsequent funeral. Defendant argued that his criminal act was leaving the scene of an accident. However, because the jury found defendant was involved in the accident, the restitution order was appropriate. id: 20822
Probation condition requiring that defendant notify his probation officer of the presence of pets in the residence was reasonably related to future criminality.The condition of probation requiring defendant to notify his probation officer of the presence of any pets in his residence was reasonably related to future criminality since the knowledge of such pets may facilitate the effective supervision of the probationer by the probation officer. id: 20753
Home supervision and a work program were not physical confinement and were appropriate conditions of probation for a minor found to possess marijuana. After finding that the minor possessed marijuana, the juvenile court imposed a number of special conditions of probation. The condition that he be placed on home supervision for 45 days did not amount to physical confinement and was an acceptable juvenile probation condition. Requiring him to participate in a work program for eight days was, likewise , a valid condition of his probation.id: 20752
Probation condition that the minor not ride in a car with more than one other minor was reasonably related to future gang-related criminality.A probation condition prevented the minor from riding in a car with more than one other minor unless accompanied by an adult. The condition was not reasonably related to his marijuana offense but was related to future gang-related criminality. Moreover, the condition did not prevent carpooling to school since it did not apply where a parent or adult was present in the car.id: 20338
Court properly imposed a probation condition prohibiting marijuana possession or use without providing an exception for medical use.Defendant pled guilty to cultivating marijuana under Health and Safety Code section 11358. He argued the trial court erred by imposing a probation condition prohibiting him from using or possessing marijuana, without providing an exception for medical use. However, the state law providing for the medical use of marijuana does not abrogate the trial court's traditional discretion to impose appropriate conditions of probation.id: 16556
Submitting to warrantless searches and seizures at any time was a valid probation condition.Appellant was convicted of several violent crimes. The probation condition that he submit to warrantless searches and seizures at any time did not unduly infringe on his constitutional rights.id: 13631
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting marijuana possession or use as a probation condition following defendant's PCP use involving a marijuana cigarette even where defendant was authorized to use medical marijuana.Defendant's possession of a marijuana cigarette laced with PCP and being under the influence of PCP were the stipulated factual basis of his convictions of possession of PCP and driving under the influence. He argued that because a doctor had recommended he use marijuana under the Compassionate Use Act, the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting marijuana possession
or use as a probation condition. The order allowed him to use THC which is the active ingredient in marijuana. The probation condition was proper since it was reasonably related to the crimes of which he was convicted and his future criminality.id: 19383
Condition of parole restricting convicted child molester's access to computers and the Internet was reasonable.Defendant was convicted in 1998 of committing a lewd act
on a child. He later challenged a condition of his parole that prohibited him from possessing or having access to computers, the Internet or camera equipment absent permission from the
Department of Adult Parole Operations. However, the parole condition was appropriate and reasonably related to deterring future criminality where he had deliberately prevented the authorities from searching his computer while he was on probation. Moreover, this was not a blanket prohibition as it allowed defendant access to a computer and the Internet with the advance approval of the DAPO.id: 19278
Probation condition precluding possessor of child pornography from using the Internet was not improper.Defendant was convicted of possessing child pornography which he collected off the Internet. He also used the Internet to solicit sex with a child. He argued the condition of probation precluding him from using the Internet was unconstitutional. However, the prohibition against Internet usage reasonably related to his offenses and was necessary as a deterrent and for protection of the public.id: 18839
Probation condition prohibiting the minor from possessing weapons was proper under Penal Code section 12021, subd.(e) following his conviction of battery on a school employee.The minor was found to have committed battery on a school employee in violation of Penal Code section 243.6. He challenged the order prohibiting him, as a condition of probation, from possessing any weapons. He argued that battery on a school employee is not an enumerated offense under section 12021, subd.(e), which prohibits juveniles convicted of certain offenses from possessing firearms. However, simply battery is one of the enumerated offenses, and the fact that the present offense was committed on a particular victim at a particular site did not make it any less a battery.id: 18813
Probation condition that defendant not initiate contact with the domestic violence victim he had since married was not improper.Defendant was convicted of domestic violence and placed in a residential treatment facility for one year. He challenged the probation condition that he not initiate contact with the victim since they were now married. However, the probation condition was reasonable and constitutionally valid as defendant's reasonable expectations of free association and marital privacy were reduced by his domestic violence conviction. Moreover, the condition was narrowly tailored consistent with defendant's rehabilitation and the victim's safety. It only prohibited him from initiating contact with her. They could still have visits as long as the contacts were acceptable and welcomed by the victim.id: 18421
Juvenile court did not violate minor's right to privacy or the psychotherapist-patient privilege by ordering disclosure of medical and psychiatric records as a condition of probation.The minor argued that the juvenile court violated his right to privacy and the psychotherapist-patient privilege by ordering, as a condition of his probation, unnecessary and overbroad disclosure of his medical and psychiatric health records. While he has a privacy interest in these records, the state has a legitimate countervailing interest in protecting the public against the minor's violent and antisocial conduct. Moreover, by reasonably limiting disclosure of the otherwise privileged psychiatric records to the probation officer and the court, the court acted under the authority of Evidence Code section 1012 and avoided the unnecessary disclosure of those communications.id: 18426
Juvenile court can impose a probation condition prohibiting contact with any person "disapproved" by a parent or probation officer. The minor argued the juvenile court erred by imposing a probation condition prohibiting contact with any person disapproved by a parent or probation officer. Although the juvenile court cannot constitutionally forbid association with any person "not approved," it can forbid association with any person "disapproved" as long as it also requires that the minor knew of the disapproval.id: 17958
Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing probation conditions requiring that defendant who was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender work full time, submit to drug testing, and not associate with minors.Defendant was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender under Penal Code section 290. The court did not abuse its discretion by requiring full time employment as a condition of probation. His claimed medical problems were not severe and were considered by the probation officer. The drug and alcohol testing condition was also proper since the underlying 1996 sex offense involved methamphetamine abuse. Finally, there was no error in the requirement that he refrain from associating with minors or frequenting places where minors congregate.id: 16616
Probation condition prohibiting "delinquent behavior" was not unconstitutionally vague.Minor argued the probation condition prohibiting "delinquent behavior" violated due process because it was so vague that ordinary people would not understand what conduct it prohibits. However, the condition was not vague since the law provides sufficient notice of what constitutes "delinquent behavior."id: 16560
Probation condition forbidding Orange County minor from entering L.A. without being accompanied by a parent or absent permission from his probation officer was not impermissibly overbroad.Minor was an Orange County resident who committed crimes and associated with gang members in Los Angeles. He appealed from a juvenile court probation order that required him to stay out of Los Angeles County unless accompanied by a parent or with permission from the probation officer. The probation condition did not impermissibly burden the minor's constitutional rights as it was consistent with the rehabilitative purpose of probation and constitutional parental authority.id: 16168
The minor's failure to object in the juvenile court to drug and alcohol testing as a probation condition waived appellate review.Minor provided his friend a piece of asphalt to strike another child. A juvenile court determined he committed a felonious assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court did not err in imposing a warrantless search probation condition in light of the use of an informal weapon. The second probation condition, alcohol and drug testing could not be challenged by the minor since he failed to object to that condition in the juvenile court.id: 16170
Trial court did not err in imposing alcohol abstention as a probation condition following conviction of methamphetamine possession.Based on the relation between alcohol and drug use, it is clear that alcohol use may lead to future criminality where the defendant has a history of substance abuse. The imposition of an alcohol condition is therefore appropriate in any case where the defendant has a history of drug use and is convicted of a drug-related offense.id: 16172
Trial court may empower probation department with authority to supervise probation conditions.The trial court has the authority to empower the probation department with authority to supervise the probation conditions. The instant condition in question provided: "Follow such course of conduct as the probation officer may prescribe." The condition was reasonable and enabled the department to supervise compliance with other probation conditions.id: 16173
Consent to search as well as drug and alcohol testing conditions of probation were not improper following elder abuse conviction.Defendant pled guilty to a single count of elder abuse in violation of Penal Code section 368, subdivision (a). At the time of the plea the court commented on defendant's alcohol problem. The trial court did not subsequently abuse its discretion in granting probation based on the conditions that she submit to warrantless searches at the discretion of her probation officer.id: 16164
Court had discretion to impose urine testing as a probation condition where neither the offenses nor social histories suggested substance abuse.After a finding that the minors used offensive language within the meaning of Penal Code section 415 they were placed on probation on condition they submit to urine testing to determine the presence of drugs or alcohol in their blood. The minors argued the urine testing requirement was improper because neither their offenses nor their social histories suggested substance abuse. However, the court had discretion under Welfare and Institutions Code section 729.3 to require urine testing as a probation condition.id: 16165
Defendant waived any defect in the untested probation condition by failing to object when it was imposed.Defendant argued the probation condition that he "observe good conduct" was unconstitutionally vague. However, he waived any defect in the contested probation condition because he failed to object to it when it was imposed.id: 16166
Minor's objection to probation conditions raised for the first time on appeal were untimely and waived.The minor argued the trial court improperly imposed probation conditions that had no reasonable relationship to the facts underlying the wardship order and his personal history. However, the objections interposed to probation conditions for the first time on appeal were untimely, and were therefore waived or forfeited.id: 15772
Keeping appellant from associating with his brothers who were also child molesters was reasonably related to rehabilitation.Appellant pled guilty to four counts of child molest. As a condition of probation the court prohibited him from having any contact with two of his brothers. The brothers were repeat child molesters. Keeping appellant from associating with other child molesters was reasonably related to rehabilitation and future criminality, particularly since appellant himself believed he had become a child molester because his brother had molested him.id: 13615
Probation condition allowing warrantless searches was proper where the record showed a substance abuse problem was related to the commission of the offenses.Appellant pled guilty to four counts of child molestation. He argued the court improperly conditioned his probation on a waiver of Fourth Amendment rights. Appellant specifically admitted that before the majority of the molestations he used methamphetamine or alcohol. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the search condition to ensure appellant did not abuse controlled substances.id: 13616
Probation condition requiring defendant to stay away from places where children congregate was properly imposed following conviction of attempting to buy a child.Defendant was convicted of two counts of attempting to buy a child (Penal Code section 181). He argued the condition of probation requiring him to stay away from places where minor children congregate must be stricken because it forbids noncriminal conduct and violates his constitutional rights. However, the condition is directly related to the crime in that his attempts to purchase the child centered on her presence at school and in each instance he followed her home from kindergarten. Moreover, the state has a compelling interest in the protection of children which justifies the restriction on defendant's freedom of association.id: 13620
Probation condition requiring minor to maintain passing grades was not improper.Defendant was determined to be a ward of the court following a weapons violation. He was placed on probation with several conditions including one requiring him to maintain satisfactory grades in school. Defendant challenged the condition arguing that it was not reasonably related to his background or crime and that it was unconstitutionally vague. The court upheld the probation condition after interpreting satisfactory grades to mean passing grades and finding no evidence to support the contention that he was unable to achieve passing grades in all subjects.id: 13621
Probation condition that defendant not associate with his co-arrestee, cocaine user girlfriend was valid.Defendant was convicted of possessing rock cocaine and was placed on three years probation on various conditions including that he not associate with his co-arrestee girlfriend. It was within the court's discretion to prohibit him from associating with other admitted cocaine users and suspected cocaine sellers such as his girlfriend.id: 13626
Probation condition that the minor not associate with anyone disapproved by his parents or probation officer did not impermissibly infringe upon his right of association.Minor was declared a ward of the court. He challenged as overbroad the condition limiting his right of association to those approved by his probation officer or parents. His purchase of a .38 caliber automatic from an unknown person on the street demonstrated the need for such control and the rational relation between the crime and the condition. The juvenile court could not reasonably be expected to define with precision all classes of persons which might influence the minor to commit further bad acts. It may instead rely on the discretion of his parents, and the probation department acting as parent to promote his rehabilitation. The minor's constitutional right of association was not impermissibly burdened by the probation condition.id: 13627
Probation conditions that defendant not live with or work for family members were not unconstitutional.Defendant was convicted of selling a controlled substance. The trial court imposed a probation condition prohibiting defendant from working for or living with family members. He was 30 years old, always lived at home and rarely worked. The probation officer and the trial court saw a clear connection between defendant's lifestyle and his involvement in crime. It was reasonable for the court to find that defendant must be forced to break free of his mother's apron strings.id: 13628
Probation officer's entry into appellant's bedroom was authorized by the access condition of his home supervision agreement.After a petition was filed alleging that the minor had unlawfully possessed cocaine, he was placed on home supervision pursuant to an agreement signed by the minor and his mother. The agreement stated the probation officer shall have access to the minor at all times. A reasonable person would understand the access condition to permit the entry into the minor's bedroom.id: 13629
Restrictive curfew probation condition was reasonably related to the minor's gang involvement and was valid.The probation order required the minor to be in his residence every evening by dark and not leave the residence before 6:00 a.m. absent an emergency. Welfare and Institutions Code section 729.2, subdivision (c) provides for a curfew between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The minor argued that the more restrictive condition imposed by the court was invalid because it was not reasonably related to his crime. However, the condition was tailored to the minor's gang involvement and the need for greater parental supervision. It was therefore valid.id: 13630
Surrender of driver's license was an appropriate probation condition where an auto was used to haul away fraudulently acquired merchandise.Defendant pled guilty to one count of conspiracy following an elaborate attempt to defraud merchants through payment of goods with stolen cashier's checks. She argued the court erred in ordering her driver's license revoked as a condition of probation because a motor vehicle was not used in the crimes as required by Vehicle Code section 13350. However, the vehicle was used to haul away the merchandise acquired in the fraudulent purchases. The probation condition was therefore proper.id: 13632
Use of polygraph as a probation condition was not improper.The trial court did not abuse its discretion by including the polygraph requirement as a condition of probation for the limited use as an investigative tool.id: 13634
No weapons probation condition was proper notwithstanding that weapons were not involved in the incident.Appellant was convicted of battery on an individual on school property and disruptive presence at school. His conditions of probation included provisions that he not possess a deadly weapon and that he submit to random drug testing. While the instant matter did not involve a weapon the condition was proper given the impulsive nature of the attack. Moreover, given defendant's background of admitted substance abuse inclusion of the drug term was appropriate.id: 13635
$70 assessment under section 11377 for Aids education programs was not a substitute for other authorized fines.Appellant pled guilty to possessing a controlled substance. As a condition of probation, the court ordered him to pay a $500 fine plus penalty assessment, a$50 lab fee and a $100 drug education fee. He argued that Health and Safety Code section 11377 does not authorize the $500 fine and penalty assessment and once the court imposed the $70 assessment, no further fines were permitted. However, the $70 assessment for the establishment of Aids education programs is not a substitute for other authorized fines but, rather, is intended to be additional to any fines the court may impose for the specific offenses.id: 13601
AIDS education program was not an improper probation condition for a non-intravenous drug user.Appellant was convicted of one felony count of possession of methamphetamine and one misdemeanor count of possession of a small amount of marijuana. As a condition of felony probation the court ordered appellant to participate in an AIDS education program. Appellant argued the order was improper where there was no finding of intravenous use. However, given appellant's history of drug use and the risk that she might begin intravenous use, the condition of probation requiring AIDS education was well within the trial court's discretion.id: 13603
Alcohol-use probation condition was reasonably related to the sale of cocaine and to future criminality.Appellant pled guilty to one count of the sale of cocaine. He argued that the probation condition that he abstain from using alcohol was not reasonably related to his sale of cocaine or to future criminality. However, given that appellant acknowledged he had an alcohol problem and an addictive personality, the alcohol use probation condition was not an abuse of discretion.id: 13604
Committing the minor to juvenile hall for 15 weekends unless he identified the other participants in the incident was not an improper condition of probation.The minor was placed on probation for one year on the condition that he be committed to juvenile hall for 15 weekends unless and until he revealed the other participants in the incident which gave rise to the petition. Contrary to the minor's claim, the probation condition was reasonably related to a proper rehabilitative objective. The minor's failure to cite <i>People v. Lent</i> (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, in the trial court did not preclude consideration of the claim on appeal in light of his timely and adequate objection.id: 13605
Court did not err in requiring parental counseling as a condition of probation.Among the minor's conditions of probation were the following: 3. Your parents shall cooperate with the probation officer and shall consult with him upon request. 21. The minor and his parents shall be involved in a counseling program at the direction of the probation officer. He argued these conditions were invalid because he faces a probation violation if his parents fail to perform these conditions. However, parental involvement is intended to promote the minor's rehabilitation. There was no error in requiring parental counseling as a condition of probation. However, the condition requiring the minor's father to become involved with alcoholics anonymous was invalid because it was only remotely connected to the goal of the minor's rehabilitation.id: 13606
Defendant's admission that he set fires to release his sense of frustration supported the trial court's finding of compulsive behavior.Defendant pled guilty to one count of arson. He challenged the probation condition requiring him to register with the chief of police where he resides pursuant to Penal Code section 457.1 because the court failed to state on the record its reasons for finding the arson was the result of compulsive behavior and further that there was no evidence of compulsive behavior. However, any error was harmless where the record amply supported the trial court's finding of compulsive behavior. By his own admission, defendant set fires to release his sense of frustration. That defendant is likely to experience a sense of frustration again cannot be doubted in light of his predisposition towards agitation and hyperactivity and his rebellious and hostile attitude towards authority figures.id: 13609
Defendant's failure to comply with rule 31(d) regarding the post-plea imposition of probation conditions precludes consideration of the issues on appeal.Defendant argued the trial court improperly imposed fees as conditions of probation by failing to make a determination of defendant's ability to pay or to pronounce them in oral argument. However, the issue cannot be entertained on appeal because defendant's notice of appeal failed to comply with the requirement of California Rules of Court, rule 31(d) that the grounds upon which the appeal is based must be stated in the notice of appeal.id: 13610
Evidence of gang membership is not a prerequisite to probation conditions directing minors to refrain from gang association.After being declared wards of the juvenile court for starting a fight, shouting obscenities and showing false identification to police officers while wearing red clothing (commonly associated with gang affiliation), sisters Laylah K. and Sombrah K., were placed on probation and ordered to comply with probation conditions designed to curb dangerous association with gangs. The minors argued the conditions were not reasonably related to their crimes or rehabilitation. However, evidence of gang membership is not a prerequisite to imposition of conditions designed to steer minors from this destructive lifestyle. Where the court entertains genuine concerns that the minor is in danger of falling under the influence of a street gang, an order directing the minor to refrain from gang association is a reasonable preventive measure in avoiding future criminality.id: 13611
Failure to challenge the reasonableness of a probation condition at the sentencing hearing constitutes a waiver of the claim on appeal.A criminal defendant's failure to challenge the reasonableness of a probation condition proposed at the probation and sentencing hearing constitutes a waiver of the claim on appeal.id: 13612
Hit and run defendant may be ordered to pay restitution as a condition of probation.When a defendant is convicted of hit and run (Vehicle Code section 20002, subdivision (a)) the court may, as a condition of probation, order restitution to the owner of the property damaged in the accident from which the defendant unlawfully fled. A restitution condition in such a case can be reasonably related to the offense underlying the conviction and can serve the purpose of rehabilitating the offender and deterring future criminality.id: 13614
Court had authority, on a valid waiver by defendant, to deny future custody credit for time spent in a residential treatment program as a probationary condition.A trial court may validly require a defendant to waive any right to future custody credit, for the time he would spend in a residential alcohol treatment center, as a condition of probation. Moreover, a defendant can knowingly and intelligently waive his right to future custody credit, even though the amount of the prospective credit was then necessarily unknown.id: 13515
Court did not err in holding defendants jointly and severally liable for restitution as a condition of probation.Joint and several liability for restitution ordered to be paid to a victim as a condition of probation is valid.id: 13433
Probation condition that minor refrain from associating with gang members was still in effect after a supplemental petition alleging a new offense was filed.In June of 1991, the juvenile court sustained a supplemental petition and as a probation condition forbid the minor from associating with a probationer or gang member. The following month a petition was filed alleging a new offense at the disposition hearing the court clerk checked a box that all prior orders were to remain in full force and effect but the checked box was in the wrong section of the form and the correct box was not checked. Appellant argued that the previous order was therefore not in effect. Taking into account the rehabilitative goal of juvenile proceedings, the fact that probation is not revoked upon the sustaining of a supplemental petition, the requirement that a juvenile court set reasonable terms and conditions when placing a minor on probation, and the lack of any indication of intent on the part of the court to terminate the condition, the minor remained subject to the condition that he not associate with probationers or gang members.id: 11699
Provision prohibiting firearm possession while on probation applies to juvenile as well as adult probationers.Juvenile court found that defendant possessed a firearm while on probation and in violation of an express probation condition prohibiting such activity pursuant to Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (d). He argued section 12021, subdivision (d) applies only to adult probationers and, therefore, the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the subsequent petition which alleged only a violation of that purportedly inapplicable code section. However, Penal code section 12021, subdivision (d) applies to a juvenile offender on probation and the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the subsequent petition.id: 11702
Restitution to the victim in the dismissed count as a condition of probation did not violate the plea agreement.Defendant argued the restitution order of $4,560 as a condition of probation violated the negotiated plea agreement. The plea agreement did not mention direct restitution to the alleged victim in dismissed count 1 as a condition of probation. However, unlike a restitution fine, a direct victim restitution order imposed as a condition of probation does not violate the plea agreement. Moreover, since the plea agreement contained a <i>Harvey</i> waiver wherein the court could consider the dismissed count for purposes of restitution the order for payment of restitution to the victim of the dismissed but related count was permissible.id: 11505
Registration requirement for a convicted marijuana dealer did not violate his right to privacy.Defendant was convicted of two drug offenses and as a condition of probation, the court required him to register with the local police or sheriff in any community in which he is domiciled pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11590. He argued the requirement violated his constitutional right to privacy, specifically his right to be left alone. However, the registration requirement was reasonable given the amount of marijuana found (six and one-half pounds), the offense and that the offender presents a significant danger to society.id: 10764
Person convicted of attempted possession is subject to the requirement regarding registration as a narcotics offender.The trial court ordered as one of the conditions of appellant's probation, that appellant register as a narcotics offender pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11590. Appellant argued his offense, attempted possession, is not one of the enumerated offenses in the statute and therefore it was error for the trial court to order registration as a condition of probation. However, the court determined the Legislature intended to include attempts within the scope of section 11590, and that a person convicted of attempting to commit one of the listed offenses is subject to the registration requirement.id: 10751
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245