People v. Davis CA4/1
D077917
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2021Background
- Defendant Ian Davis pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent exposure for repeatedly masturbating on or near preschool/school property while children were present; related charges were dismissed.
- Probation report noted prior similar incidents (2019 park and alley exposures), methamphetamine possession, sex-offender registration, and poor prior probation compliance.
- Court sentenced Davis to 365 days local custody and three years formal probation and imposed special probation conditions including: (a) warrantless searches of electronic devices (condition 6(n)); (b) prohibition on possessing "toys, video games, or similar items" that attract children (condition 10(o)); and (c) ban on possessing "pornographic material" and frequenting places where it is the main item for sale (condition 10(p)).
- On appeal Davis challenged the electronic-search condition (unreasonable and overbroad), condition 10(o) (unreasonable and vague), condition 10(p) (vague), and sought retroactive application of Assembly Bills 1950 and 1869 to reduce probation length and vacate court-fee obligations.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, upheld the electronic-search and the toys prohibition, struck condition 10(p) as unconstitutionally vague and remanded for refinement, accepted retroactive application of AB 1950 (reduce felony probation to two years) and AB 1869 (vacate unpaid criminal-administration fee), and remanded with directions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the warrantless electronic-search probation condition (6(n)) is reasonable under Lent/Ricardo P. | People: condition reasonably related to future criminality and rehabilitation given sexual nature of offenses, history of repetition, meth use, and risk of electronic-facilitated contact or pornography use. | Davis: no nexus—he did not use electronics to commit offenses; condition imposes heavy privacy burden and is disproportionate per Ricardo P. | Upheld: court found sufficient factual basis tying electronics to reoffending risk and rehabilitation; condition not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether Davis can raise a Fourth Amendment overbreadth challenge to the electronic-search condition on appeal | People: forfeiture applies because Davis did not raise the constitutional claim below; only facial challenges excepted. | Davis: condition is unconstitutionally overbroad and a warrantless sweep violates the Fourth Amendment. | Forfeited: the court treated it as an as-applied challenge and rejected it for forfeiture; no facial invalidation granted. |
| Whether probation condition 10(o) (ban on possessing toys/video games that attract children) is reasonable under Lent and sufficiently definite | People: condition reasonably tailored to prevent access to items that might facilitate offenses near children given Davis’s pattern of offending. | Davis: no demonstrated link between possession of such items and his offenses; condition is vague. | Upheld: Lent’s relatedness/prong satisfied; vagueness constitutional challenge forfeited because not raised below. |
| Whether condition 10(p) (ban on "pornographic material") is unconstitutionally vague | People: (conceded vagueness in brief but proposed a permissible modification used in prior cases). | Davis: term "pornographic" is inherently imprecise and fails to give fair warning. | Struck and remanded: court agreed the term is vague and directed trial court to redraft the condition with greater precision/notice. |
| Whether Assembly Bill No. 1950 (limiting felony probation to two years) applies retroactively | People: concede AB 1950 applies to nonfinal cases and remand is appropriate so trial court can adjust probation term and conditions as needed. | Davis: seeks reduction of probation to two years under AB 1950. | Granted: court accepted concession; remanded to reduce formal felony probation term to two years. |
| Whether Assembly Bill No. 1869 (eliminating certain fees) applies retroactively to vacate the criminal-administration fee | People: concede AB 1869 applies and unpaid balance of the fee is unenforceable. | Davis: seeks vacation of the $154 criminal-justice administration fee. | Granted: vacated any unpaid balance of the fee as of July 1, 2021. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (probation condition valid if reasonably related to the crime or future criminality)
- In re Ricardo P., 7 Cal.5th 1113 (probational electronics-search condition invalid when record lacks nexus to future criminality)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (search-incident-to-arrest limits on cellphone searches; distinguished here)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (state interest in supervising parolees/probationers permits greater search intrusions)
- People v. Falsetta, 21 Cal.4th 903 (secretive nature of sex offenses and public-safety rationales for monitoring)
- In re D.H., 4 Cal.App.5th 722 (term "pornography" is inherently vague; remand to define prohibited material more precisely)
- People v. Pirali, 217 Cal.App.4th 1341 (modify vague pornography-related probation condition by requiring probation officer to identify prohibited materials)
- People v. Turner, 155 Cal.App.4th 1432 (similar modification to cure vagueness by providing notice via probation officer)
- People v. Sims, 59 Cal.App.5th 943 (AB 1950 applies retroactively to nonfinal convictions)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (ameliorative criminal law changes apply retroactively unless Legislature indicates otherwise)