People v. Bray
H051237
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Daniel Bray pleaded no contest to felony possession of child pornography in California (Penal Code section 311.11).
- The court granted him a two-year term of formal probation with several special conditions, including restrictions on Internet use, socializing/dating persons with minor children, and possession/frequenting places with pornography.
- Bray challenged the constitutionality of four probation conditions: (1) the Internet access ban, (2) restrictions on dating/socializing with persons who have minor children, (3) a ban on possessing pornography, and (4) a ban on frequenting businesses displaying pornography.
- The Attorney General conceded that the "pornography" conditions were vague and that the "socialize" restriction was overbroad.
- The appellate court reviewed for overbreadth and vagueness, focusing on whether the conditions impinged on constitutional rights like association and speech and whether they were sufficiently tailored to Bray's rehabilitation and public safety.
- The case was remanded for the trial court to strike or modify the challenged probation conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dating/socializing restriction (Condition 20) | Necessary to protect minors and prevent Bray from using romantic relationships for access to children | Overbroad, infringes right to association and is not narrowly tailored; "socialize" particularly vague | Condition is overbroad; remanded to strike or narrowly tailor to address contacts with minors |
| Internet access restriction (Condition 12) | Justified due to Internet's role in offense and Bray's history; exceptions can be granted by probation | Overbroad, unduly burdens right to speech and modern life necessities | Overbroad; remanded to strike or make more tailored restriction on Internet use |
| Pornography possession ban (Condition 21) | Officer’s discretion and undefined standard is sufficient | Vague, subjective, lacks specificity on what material is banned | Unconstitutionally vague; must be defined or stricken |
| Ban on frequenting pornographic businesses (Condition 22) | Protects rehab and prevents access to inappropriate materials | Vague and subjective without definition | Unconstitutionally vague; must be defined or stricken |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (Cal. 1975) (sets the test for valid probation conditions)
- People v. Carbajal, 10 Cal.4th 1114 (Cal. 1995) (court's broad discretion in probation conditions)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) (standards for vagueness and overbreadth in probation conditions)
- People v. Olguin, 45 Cal.4th 375 (Cal. 2008) (probation conditions analysis)
- People v. O’Neil, 165 Cal.App.4th 1351 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (overbreadth and authority delegation in probation)