47 Cal.App.5th 657
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Minor (a high school student) was found to have committed indecent exposure and simple battery for two in-class incidents involving 14‑year‑old classmates: an alleged exposure to C.S. and inappropriate touching of M.I.
- Juvenile court declared minor a ward, placed him on probation, and imposed multiple conditions (including sex‑offender counseling, electronics searches, restrictions on sexually explicit materials, evaluations and polygraphs, fees/fines, and stay‑away/school rules).
- The dispositional report recommended an electronics‑search condition requiring disclosure of passwords and warrantless searches; the court initially questioned that but then incorporated a treatment‑contingent electronics search into condition 21.
- Minor appealed several probation conditions as unreasonable, vague, overbroad, or unauthorized; the Court of Appeal reviewed Lent and Ricardo P. principles on probation limits and privacy burdens.
- The court: struck the electronics‑search portion of condition 21; modified the sexually explicit materials prohibition; struck parents’ financial‑liability language for assessments; struck the $100 section 730.5 fine as a probation condition (allowing a separate fine order on remand); corrected typographical and administrative errors (condition 13 and CSB referral $35 fee).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electronics search condition (Cond. 21) | Needed to monitor online activity if sex‑offender treatment ordered; common practice | Fails Lent: not reasonably related to future criminality; privacy burden disproportionate | Struck: invalid under Lent and Ricardo P.; generic justification insufficient |
| Possession of sexually explicit materials (Cond. 29/41) | Condition as clarified prohibits pornographic materials; necessary for rehabilitation | Vagueness/overbreadth as written | Modified to ban items whose "primary purpose of causing sexual arousal"; upheld as not unconstitutionally vague |
| Psychological/psychiatric evaluations & polygraph (Conds. 18 & 22) | Assessments and polygraphs are part of treatment; questions limited by treatment purpose | Vagueness, impermissible delegation, polygraph overbroad, and parental financial liability unauthorized | Evaluations and polygraph upheld as sufficiently precise and treatment‑limited; struck phrase making parents financially liable |
| $100 fine under §730.5 (Cond. 25) | Juvenile discretion permits fine as probational condition | Minor: fine is collateral and not properly a probation condition | Struck as a probation condition; court may impose a separate §730.5 fine order on remand |
| Stay‑away/school condition typographical error (Cond. 13) | N/A (both parties concur correction needed) | N/A | Modified to insert "or" for clarity per JV‑624 form |
| Condition requiring parents provide phone bills / CSB $35 fee | Probation needs billing to enforce Cond. 31 | Minor: violates parents’ rights; $35 fee not imposed by court | Court noted minor lacks standing to assert parents' Fourth Amendment rights; directed deletion of $35 administrative fee from CSB referral |
Key Cases Cited
- Lent v. California, 15 Cal.3d 481 (establishes three‑part test for invalidating probation conditions)
- Ricardo P. v. Superior Court, 7 Cal.5th 1113 (electronics‑search probation condition struck where burden disproportionate and justification general)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (cellphone searches implicate substantial privacy interests)
- In re J.B., 242 Cal.App.4th 749 (questioning the meaningfulness of purported limits on electronics searches)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (probation condition vagueness/delegation principles)
- People v. Garcia, 2 Cal.5th 792 (polygraph as part of sex‑offender program not per se overbroad)