People v. Appleton
245 Cal. App. 4th 717
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Paul Jason Appleton met the minor victim via the Grindr app; the victim later reported a sexual assault by Appleton and two others. Appleton pleaded no contest to false imprisonment by deceit and received suspended sentence with three years probation.
- The probation terms included two challenged conditions: (1) warrantless forensic searches of any computers/electronic devices for “material prohibited by law,” and (2) a requirement not to delete Internet browsing history and to maintain at least four weeks of history.
- At sentencing the court justified the search condition because social media was involved in how contact was initiated; Appleton accepted probation but later objected and preserved his challenges on the record.
- Appleton argued the conditions were overbroad, vague, unrelated to the offense or future criminality, and violated Fourth, Fifth, and First Amendment rights; the Attorney General argued waiver and that the conditions were reasonably related and narrowly tailored.
- The Court of Appeal held the device-search condition unconstitutionally overbroad as written and struck it, remanding so the trial court can craft a narrower condition; it upheld the no-deletion-of-browser-history condition as valid and sufficiently narrow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity under Lent of warrantless forensic searches of all defendant-owned electronic devices | Condition is reasonably related to offense because social media initiated contact; monitoring devices serves public safety | Condition has attenuated nexus, invades privacy, and is unrelated to future criminality | Condition is invalid as overbroad as written; strike and remand for narrower alternative |
| Fourth Amendment/Privacy challenge to broad digital-search condition | Probationers can validly consent to searches; supervision interests justify intrusion | Digital devices hold extensive private data; searches are far more invasive than home/vehicle searches | Search condition implicates strong privacy interests; wording "material prohibited by law" is insufficiently limiting |
| Whether a narrower social-media monitoring alternative exists | Broad forensic searches necessary to detect prohibited communications | Less intrusive measures (account/password disclosure or restricting access) suffice | Court recommends narrower options (social-media accounts/passwords, prior approval for access) and remands to implement them |
| Validity and vagueness of condition prohibiting deletion of browser history | Necessary and minimally intrusive to enforce social-media monitoring | Ambiguous without a knowledge/scienter element; accidental deletions possible | Condition is valid as written; no express scienter required because the prohibition is not inherently vague |
Key Cases Cited
- Lent v. California, 15 Cal.3d 481 (establishes three-part test for probation-condition validity)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (probation limits on constitutional rights must be closely tailored)
- Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (searches of cell phones implicate heightened privacy concerns)
- People v. Ebertowski, 228 Cal.App.4th 1170 (upheld social-media/password monitoring tied to gang activity)
- People v. Pirali, 217 Cal.App.4th 1341 (upheld probation limits on Internet access subject to prior approval)
- In re Victor L., 182 Cal.App.4th 902 (addressed computer-use restrictions for minors)
- People v. Michael E., 230 Cal.App.4th 261 (recognizes expectation of privacy in computer contents)
- In re Mark C., 244 Cal.App.4th 520 (found similar device-search condition invalid under Lent)