In re B.E. CA3, C092365

Minor B.E. admitted to misdemeanor possession of cocaine and was placed on six months non-wardship probation under Welf. & Inst. Code § 725(a).
At disposition the court imposed multiple probation conditions and, sua sponte, set a one-year maximum term of confinement, though the minor remained in his mother’s custody.
Minor objected at disposition to several proposed conditions (including Nos. 10, 11, 14, and 18); on appeal he challenged the maximum confinement term and two specific conditions (No. 11 and No. 8).
Condition No. 11 barred contact/association with “Persons known to be on probation or parole.” Condition No. 8 barred use/possession/being under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or “intoxicating substance.”
The People conceded the maximum confinement term was improper; the appeal raised both forfeiture and facial vagueness/overbreadth issues for the challenged conditions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether juvenile court may set a maximum confinement term when minor was not removed from parental custody	People agreed the maximum term should be stricken.	Court erred in setting a maximum term because the minor was not removed from parental custody.	Maximum term stricken.
Whether condition No. 11 (no contact/association with persons known to be on probation or parole) is constitutional	People argued condition was permissible / forfeited by lack of objection.	Condition is unconstitutionally vague/overbroad because it lacks a knowledge qualifier.	Modified to prohibit association only with persons the minor knows to be on probation or parole.
Whether condition No. 8 (no use/possession/being under the influence of alcohol or intoxicating substances) is constitutional	People argued condition was permissible / forfeited as to fact-based claims.	Condition is vague/overbroad and could prohibit lawful substances absent a knowledge element.	Modified to prohibit alcohol or substances the minor knows to be illegal or intoxicating (adds knowledge qualifier).
Whether defendant forfeited challenges to the conditions by failing to object at disposition	People contended forfeiture for fact-based challenges.	Minor argued facial vagueness/overbreadth claims survive despite no objection.	Fact-based claims forfeited; facial vagueness/overbreadth claims preserved and resolved in minor's favor as to Nos. 8 & 11.

In re Matthew A., 165 Cal.App.4th 537 (explaining max confinement term applies only when minor is removed from parental custody)
In re A.C., 224 Cal.App.4th 590 (remedy for improper maximum confinement term is to strike it)
In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (facial vagueness/overbreadth challenges to probation conditions may be raised on appeal)
People v. Hall, 2 Cal.5th 494 (knowledge of contraband may be implicit for possessory conditions, but scope issues can require clarification)
People v. Rodriguez, 222 Cal.App.4th 578 (supports adding express knowledge requirement for ambiguous categories like "intoxicants")
People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (probation conditions must be related to offense and rehabilitation)
In re Justin S., 93 Cal.App.4th 811 (association bans without a knowledge qualifier are impermissibly vague)