People v. Garcia
216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 75
Cal.2017Background
- Ignacio Garcia pleaded no contest to two misdemeanor lewd-conduct counts, was placed on probation, ordered to register as a sex offender, and required to participate in an approved sex offender management program under Penal Code §1203.067.
- Chelsea’s Law (2010) and CASOMB’s Containment Model mandate coordinated supervision: treatment providers, probation officers, and certified polygraph examiners share information to assess and reduce sex-offender recidivism.
- §1203.067(b)(3) conditions probation on waiver of "any privilege against self-incrimination" and participation in polygraph examinations as part of the program.
- §1203.067(b)(4) conditions probation on waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege to permit communication between the treatment professional and the supervising probation officer (and polygraph examiner) per §290.09.
- Garcia challenged (1) that forcing waiver of the Fifth Amendment and polygraph participation is unconstitutional, and (2) that the psychotherapist-privilege waiver is overbroad and violates privacy. The Court of Appeal affirmed; the California Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1203.067(b)(3) requires waiver of Fifth Amendment protections | State: read narrowly to require answers in supervision but not strip trial-use protections; compelled statements are immune from prosecution use | Garcia: statute mandates an unconstitutional waiver of the privilege, including use at trial | Court: statute reasonably construed to compel answers for supervision but guarantees immunity against direct and derivative use in criminal prosecutions |
| Whether compelled participation in polygraph examinations violates Fifth Amendment | State: polygraph part of treatment/supervision; compelled answers are immune so no Fifth Amendment violation | Garcia: polygraph elicits incriminating info, so compelled testing violates Fifth Amendment | Court: polygraph participation valid when tied to program goals; answers compelled under (b)(3) are immune and thus do not violate Fifth Amendment |
| Whether scope of polygraph testing is overbroad | State: scope limited to what’s reasonably necessary for treatment/supervision and baseline calibration | Garcia: polygraph could be unlimited in scope and probe irrelevant personal matters | Court: scope limited by program purpose to criminal conduct and necessary baseline questions; not overbroad |
| Whether §1203.067(b)(4) waiver of psychotherapist-patient privilege violates privacy/overbroad | State: waiver is narrowly tailored to enable communication among containment team members necessary for supervision/treatment | Garcia: coerced waiver intrudes on privacy and is overbroad | Court: limited waiver (to probation officer and certified polygraph examiner for program needs) is constitutional and not overbroad; defendant’s privacy diminished on probation |
Key Cases Cited
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (States may compel answers in probation supervision so long as compelled statements are not used in prosecution)
- Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976) (Fifth Amendment bars use of compelled statements against the person who made them)
- Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) (prosecution bears heavy burden to prove evidence is untainted by compelled testimony)
- United States v. Balsys, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) (discussion of immunity and use of compelled testimony)
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002) (plurality opinion recognizing rehabilitative regimes and role of polygraph in treatment)
- Maldonado v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1112 (2012) (California discussion of compelled disclosures and limits on their use)
- People v. Gonzales, 56 Cal.4th 353 (2013) (weighing privacy interests of supervised sex offenders against state interests in information sharing under containment models)