People v. J.E.
1 Cal. App. 5th 795
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Minor pleaded to misdemeanor second-degree burglary and was placed on juvenile probation with conditions including drug treatment, curfew, no contact with victims/co-offenders, and a requirement to submit electronics (and passwords) for search by probation or peace officers on request.
- Minor had serious behavioral and rehabilitative concerns: chronic truancy, poor grades, suspensions, prior gang associations, prior weapon at school, and extensive substance use (marijuana, Xanax, alcohol, "syrup"); he tested positive for THC while on probation.
- Minor moved to delete the electronic-search condition, arguing no nexus to the burglary, that it was overbroad and implicated Riley Fourth Amendment privacy protections, and that it risked violating Cal. Penal Code § 632 (illegal eavesdropping).
- The juvenile court denied the motion, finding electronics-searches necessary to supervise drug use, monitoring purchases/sales/usage, and to facilitate compliance with other probation terms.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the condition reasonably related to future criminality and not unconstitutionally overbroad or violative of § 632, given Minor’s circumstances and probation status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity under Lent (probation condition test) | AG: Condition not related to underlying burglary but is reasonably related to preventing future criminality by enabling supervision | Minor: No connection to crime, regulates noncriminal conduct, not reasonably related to future criminality | Held: Valid under Lent — condition reasonably related to supervising drug/gang risk and deterring future criminality given Minor’s record |
| Overbreadth / Privacy (Riley implications) | AG: Probationers have diminished privacy; condition narrowly serves supervision and rehabilitation | Minor: Electronics are "bottomless pits" per Riley; condition implicates extensive privacy and is insufficiently tailored | Held: Not overbroad here — probation context and juvenile status reduce expectation of privacy; intrusion justified by rehabilitative and public-safety interests |
| § 632 (illegal eavesdropping risk) | AG: No preserved claim; Minor lacks standing to assert third-party harms | Minor: Condition risks unlawful eavesdropping on confidential communications | Held: Forfeited and not properly asserted; claim denied |
| Procedural preservation / remedy | AG: Minor forfeited some constitutional objections by not raising them below | Minor: Preserved Fourth Amendment objection when objecting to warrantless searches and lack of record support | Held: Court exercised discretion to address overbreadth on the merits despite some preservation issues |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (established three-part test for probation-condition validity)
- People v. Olguin, 45 Cal.4th 375 (probation conditions facilitating supervision may be reasonably related to deterring future criminality)
- People v. Ebertowski, 228 Cal.App.4th 1170 (upheld electronic-search/password conditions for gang supervision)
- In re Erica R., 240 Cal.App.4th 907 (struck similar electronic-search condition where record lacked rationale tying condition to future risk)
- In re J.B., 242 Cal.App.4th 749 (struck electronic-search condition as not reasonably related and overbroad on that record)
- In re P.O., 246 Cal.App.4th 288 (upheld and narrowed electronic-search condition where needed supervision justified it)
- People v. Appleton, 245 Cal.App.4th 717 (recognized retained privacy interest in electronic contents for probationers and remanded in adult probation context)