53 Cal.App.5th 929
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- In March 2019 the juvenile court continued 17-year-old I.M. as a ward, ordered detention in juvenile hall (maximum custody 3 years 4 months or until age 21) and imposed two conditions: (1) participate in and "successfully complete" the custodial Girls in Motion (GIM) program, and (2) "report any police contacts" to her deputy probation officer (DPO) within 24 hours.
- I.M. admitted a felony grand theft allegation (to be reduced to a misdemeanor on successful completion of probation); robbery and probation-violation allegations were dismissed by agreement.
- Probation recommended GIM because of I.M.’s poor engagement and risk; the court scheduled a 5-month review and noted availability of petitions to modify the disposition.
- I.M. appealed, challenging (a) that the GIM condition unlawfully delegated the court’s authority over length of commitment to probation, and (b) that the police-contact reporting condition was vague and overbroad.
- The GIM issue became moot after the juvenile court terminated detention on January 30, 2020 when I.M. completed GIM; the court nonetheless addressed the delegation claim on the merits.
- The court affirmed the disposition except it remanded to the juvenile court to either strike or narrowly reword the police-contact reporting condition to meet constitutional standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether requiring I.M. to "successfully complete" the custodial GIM program unlawfully delegated the juvenile court’s authority over the length of custody to probation | People: Condition is valid because the disposition sets a maximum term and the court retains ultimate authority via review hearings and modification petitions | I.M.: The program handbook lets probation decide advancement and completion, so probation effectively controls the length of custody (impermissible delegation) | Court: Affirmed. No improper delegation — court fixed maximum custody, retained ultimate authority, and provided review/modification mechanisms; issue moot but decided on merits |
| Whether the probation condition requiring I.M. to "report any police contacts" to the DPO within 24 hours is constitutional | People: Conceded vagueness/overbreadth but offered a narrower proposed rewording (report police contacts related to criminal activity/arrests/ID requests) | I.M.: Condition is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad; should be stricken or precisely rewritten | Court: Agreed the condition is vague/overbroad; remanded to juvenile court to strike or narrowly tailor the requirement so it clearly identifies what police contacts must be reported |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Morales, 63 Cal.4th 399 (2016) (court may address moot issues if likely to recur and of public interest)
- In re J.C., 33 Cal.App.5th 741 (2019) (juvenile court may retain ultimate authority over release despite probation's day-to-day supervision of treatment programs)
- In re Robert M., 215 Cal.App.4th 1178 (2013) (when committed to a county facility, juvenile court retains ultimate responsibility and control despite administrative supervision)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (2007) (conditions of probation must be closely tailored to their purpose)
- People v. Relkin, 6 Cal.App.5th 1188 (2016) (probation conditions that require reporting "police contacts" can be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad)