42 Cal.App.5th 839
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- In August 2014 Bryant was arrested in a parked car where police found an unregistered, loaded .45 handgun; his DNA matched DNA on the magazine. He was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle and related enhancements.
- The trial court imposed a split sentence under Penal Code § 1170(h): county jail with the last portion suspended and a period of mandatory supervision by county probation.
- Over Bryant’s objection the court required, during mandatory supervision, that he submit to searches of text messages, emails, and photographs on any cellular phone or electronic device in his possession or residence.
- The court justified the condition as necessary to monitor compliance with terms banning weapons and gang association and limited the scope to texts, emails, and photos (no temporal limits).
- The Court of Appeal previously invalidated the condition (People v. Bryant), the Supreme Court granted review and then transferred the case after deciding In re Ricardo P.; on reconsideration the Court of Appeal again struck the electronic-search condition under People v. Lent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of electronic-search condition under Lent (future-criminality prong) | Condition is reasonably related to supervision and public safety; aids monitoring for weapons/gang ties | No record link between Bryant’s offense/personal history and use of devices in criminality; condition imposes heavy privacy burden | Condition invalid under Lent: no evidence connecting device searches to future criminality; privacy burden disproportionate |
| Whether Lent applies to terms of mandatory supervision (vs. parole standard) | Mandatory supervision is more like parole; Burgener standard for parole searches should govern | § 1170(h)(5)(B) requires supervision “in accordance with” terms generally applicable to probationers; Lent applies | Lent applies to mandatory supervision because statute ties supervision terms to those "generally applicable to persons placed on probation." |
| Constitutional overbreadth challenge to electronic-search condition | (AG did not primarily raise) | Bryant argued condition is unconstitutionally overbroad | Court declined to decide overbreadth after resolving the Lent claim; did not rule on constitutional challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (1975) (announces three-part test for validity of probation conditions)
- In re Ricardo P., 7 Cal.5th 1113 (2019) (limits sweeping electronics-search conditions as disproportionate to their justification)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (recognizes heightened privacy interests in cell phones)
- People v. Burgener, 41 Cal.3d 505 (1986) (parole-search standard discussed)
- People v. Ebertowski, 228 Cal.App.4th 1170 (2014) (upholds electronics-search condition where record showed gang-related social-media use)