People v. D.H.
4 Cal. App. 5th 722
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- 16-year-old D.H. admitted to misdemeanor indecent exposure after allegedly masturbating on a bus and ejaculating onto a passenger’s clothing. Other charges were dismissed; juvenile court declared him a ward and placed him on probation.
- The juvenile court imposed multiple probation conditions, of which four are challenged on appeal: (1) no access to pornography; (2) submit electronic devices and passwords to warrantless searches; (3) attend school regularly; and (4) not be away from home without a parent or probation officer’s permission (stay-home/curfew overlap).
- There were multiple written and oral sources of the probation terms (dispositional report, oral pronouncement, minute order, signed probation document), creating ambiguity about the operative language. The court held the oral pronouncement (with one specific addition) controlled for the electronic-search condition and the attendance/no-pornography language.
- D.H. raised vagueness and overbreadth constitutional challenges to the no-pornography, electronics-search, attendance, and stay-home conditions. The Attorney General conceded some need for modification.
- The Court: (a) held the no-pornography condition unconstitutionally vague and remanded for clarification; (b) held the electronics-search condition valid under Lent but unconstitutionally overbroad as written and remanded to narrow its scope; (c) affirmed the attendance condition as sufficiently clear in context; and (d) remanded to clarify whether the stay-home condition was intended given overlap with a curfew.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (D.H.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity/vagueness of no-pornography condition | Condition can be defined or limited by probation officer or by requiring notice of what is prohibited | Term "pornography" is inherently vague; must be modified to include knowledge requirement or be struck | Condition is unconstitutionally vague; remanded for the juvenile court to define purpose and precisely specify prohibited material (knowledge requirement not sufficient) |
| Validity under Lent of electronics-search condition | Condition aids supervision and rehabilitation, so reasonably related to future criminality; therefore valid under Lent | Condition is unrelated to offense and infringes privacy; should be invalidated under Lent | Condition is valid under Lent (first two Lent prongs met but third not met); preserved challenge allowed; remanded to tailor scope |
| Overbreadth of electronics-search condition | Broad searches necessary to monitor compliance with no-pornography restriction | Warrantless searches of devices and passwords overly intrusive and not narrowly tailored | Condition is unconstitutionally overbroad; must be narrowed to permit warrantless review only of communications/media reasonably likely to reveal compliance with any properly tailored no-pornography condition |
| Vagueness/ambiguity of attendance and stay-home/curfew conditions | Attendance and curfew reflect ordinary supervisory needs; attendance discernible with other condition to "obey school rules" | "Attend school regularly" is vague; stay-home conflicts with narrower curfew and may be overbroad/vague | Attendance requirement is sufficiently clear when read with "obey school rules" condition and is affirmed; stay-home is ambiguous in the record and remanded for clarification whether and to what extent it was intended |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent test for invalid probation conditions)
- People v. Olguin, 45 Cal.4th 375 (probation conditions enabling effective supervision reasonably relate to future criminality)
- People v. Pirali, 217 Cal.App.4th 1341 (vagueness concerns when definition left to probation officer)
- In re P.O., 246 Cal.App.4th 288 (electronics-search condition analysis; tailoring required)
- United States v. Guagliardo, 278 F.3d 868 (term "pornography" lacks a recognized legal definition; remand for specificity)
- United States v. Loy, 237 F.3d 251 (circuit analysis on vagueness of "pornography")
- Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470 (similar circuit concern over lack of clear definition for pornography)
- United States v. Phipps, 319 F.3d 177 (discussion on sufficiency of related language to cure vagueness)