People v. Moran, 1 Cal. 5th 398

Background

Moran stole merchandise from a Home Depot in San Jose, pleaded no contest to second-degree burglary and a prior prison-term enhancement, and received probation with a one-year jail term and conditions including a prohibition on entering the premises or adjacent parking lots of any Home Depot in California.
Moran did not object to the probation condition at sentencing. On appeal, the Court of Appeal struck the Home Depot stay-away condition as overbroad and suggested it might violate Moran’s right to travel.
The People sought review in the California Supreme Court to resolve whether a probationer may be barred from the victim’s business properties without violating the state or federal constitution.
The Supreme Court analyzed the condition under state law standards for probation conditions (Lent test and Penal Code § 1203.1) and then addressed the claimed constitutional right to travel issue.
The Court concluded the stay-away condition was reasonably related to Moran’s crime and future criminality and imposed within the trial court’s discretion; it further held the restriction was too minimal to implicate Moran’s constitutional right to travel.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded; the Court noted Moran’s probation had already been terminated but retained the case to resolve the legal issue.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity under state law (Lent test) of statewide Home Depot stay-away condition	State: condition is reasonably related to the underlying theft and to preventing future criminality; fits within §1203.1 discretion	Moran: statewide scope and inclusion of parking lots is overbroad relative to a single-store theft	Court: Condition is reasonably related to the crime and future criminality; trial court did not abuse discretion under Lent and §1203.1
Right to intrastate travel — does the condition implicate the constitutional right to travel?	State: restriction is minimal, incidental to probation, and does not meaningfully burden travel rights	Moran: statewide ban and adjacent-parking-lot language unreasonably restricts mobility and daily life	Court: Restriction is de minimis and does not implicate the travel right; thus no heightened scrutiny required
Whether stay-away orders must include a legitimate-business exception	State: no constitutional requirement for a blanket legitimate-business exception where condition is reasonably tailored to rehabilitation	Moran: lack of exception renders the condition overbroad	Court: No such exception required here; condition appropriately tailored and within discretion
Scope remediability and forfeiture	State: trial court could have tailored condition if objection raised; appellate challenge permissible as pure legal question	Moran: challenged on appeal though he did not object below	Court: Failure to object may forfeit some challenges, but here merits were addressed; condition upheld on the merits

Key Cases Cited

People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (Cal. 1975) (sets three-prong test for invalidating probation conditions)
People v. Olguin, 45 Cal.4th 375 (Cal. 2008) (review of probation conditions for abuse of discretion; constitutional infringements treated differently)
People v. Carbajal, 10 Cal.4th 1114 (Cal. 1995) (probation conditions may be upheld if reasonably related to rehabilitation even when not precisely tied to the crime)
People v. Petty, 213 Cal.App.4th 1410 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (stay-away condition held not to substantially burden intrastate travel where linked to crime)
In re Antonio R., 78 Cal.App.4th 937 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (upholding extensive geographic travel restriction on juvenile probation where reasonably related to gang-related offenses)
Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (U.S. 1969) (discusses the right to travel and migration as a fundamental liberty)
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protection Assn., 485 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1988) (principle of judicial restraint in constitutional adjudication)