People v. Malik J.
240 Cal. App. 4th 896
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Malik J., a juvenile previously adjudicated for robbery (2012) and on probation, admitted violating probation after participating in multiple robberies and possessing marijuana in 2014.
- At disposition the court continued prior probation terms (including a general search clause) and added a new electronics search condition after the prosecutor noted phones may have been used to coordinate crimes and one robbery involved an iPhone.
- The oral condition required Malik (and, as orally stated, his family) to provide all passwords to electronic devices and social media and to submit devices/accounts to warrantless searches by peace officers.
- The signed minute order omitted references to the family and social media but required Malik to provide passwords to electronic devices and submit devices to warrantless search.
- Malik appealed, challenging the electronics/social media password and search condition as overbroad, vague, and unconstitutional as applied to him and his family.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of broad electronics/social-media search condition | Condition is reasonable given Malik’s history of robbing phones and potential use of devices to coordinate crimes | Condition is overbroad, invades privacy and free expression, and is not narrowly tailored to future criminality | Court: condition as drafted is overbroad and must be narrowed |
| Requirement to turn over passwords to social media accounts | Prosecutor: access to accounts may reveal coordination or stolen-property evidence | Malik: account contents unrelated to ownership; password disclosure is an excessive intrusion | Court: passwords to social media must be omitted; no warrantless access to social media content via compelled passwords |
| Warrantless searches of electronic devices in custody/control | People: warrantless searches reasonable to determine ownership of devices and detect stolen property | Malik: unfettered searches violate Riley privacy protections and are overbroad | Court: warrantless searches may be authorized only for devices in Malik’s custody/control and subject to safeguards (disable network, no forensic tools) |
| Application of condition to family members | People suggest clerk’s minute omit family language; thus family not intended to be bound | Malik: family cannot be subjected to warrantless searches or compelled password disclosure; court lacked jurisdiction over them | Court: any reference to family is stricken; condition cannot apply to non-probationers |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Todd L., 113 Cal.App.3d 14 (1980) (juvenile court must consider minor’s social history when imposing conditions)
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (1975) (three-part test: relation to offense, to criminality, and reasonable relation to future criminality)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (2007) (probation conditions impinging constitutional rights must be narrowly tailored)
- In re Jaime P., 40 Cal.4th 128 (2006) (warrantless searches of probationer’s property permissible if not arbitrary, capricious or harassing)
- Riley v. California, 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014) (modern cell phones implicate substantial privacy interests; content searches generally require greater protection)