People v. Nachbar CA4/1
207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 855
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Steven Nachbar (age 22) pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor more than three years younger (Pen. Code §261.5(c)) after sexually assaulting a 15‑year‑old while on prior probation for a similar offense.
- He was sentenced to 381 days (with credits) and placed on formal probation for three years; the court required sex‑offender registration per §290.
- Probation conditions included: no photographic equipment; no toys/video games/other items that attract children; probation‑officer approval of residence; and warrantless, suspicionless searches of computers/recordable media.
- The probation officer rated Nachbar moderate–high risk to reoffend and recommended intensive monitoring; a psychological evaluation noted sexual attraction to adolescent females and use of internet pornography.
- Nachbar appealed, challenging four probation conditions and the court’s lifetime registration pronouncement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photographic equipment ban | Related to future risk given defendant’s attraction to adolescents and internet use | Overbroad; unrelated to conviction (not charged with child pornography) | Upheld — condition reasonably related to future criminality under Lent and trial discretion affirmed |
| Ban on toys/video games that attract children | Court: protects against tools for seduction of minors | No objection preserved below; argues no nexus to crime | Forfeited on appeal for failure to object at sentencing |
| Residence approval by PO | State: supervision tool to protect minors and monitor risk | Violates travel and association rights; overbroad | Forfeited — defendant did not raise specific objection below; record needed to assess overbreadth |
| Warrantless/suspicionless searches of computers/media | State: justified by defendant’s use of social media, texts, mobile devices in offense and high reoffense risk | Overbroad and implicates privacy under Riley | Upheld — court adopts reasoning distinguishing probationer’s diminished privacy; condition reasonably tailored given record |
| Lifetime sex‑offender registration wording | Section 290 imposes lifetime registration; court’s pronouncement accurate | Argues court should have recognized possible future relief (certificate of rehabilitation) | Denied — registration for life is authorized; future remedies do not make the sentence unauthorized |
Key Cases Cited
- Lent v. California, 15 Cal.3d 481 (condition invalidity test)
- Moran v. California, 1 Cal.5th 398 (probation as clemency; standard for conditions)
- Appleton v. California, 245 Cal.App.4th 717 (struck broad electronics‑search condition)
- In re J.E., 1 Cal.App.5th 795 (upheld electronics searches for probationer in light of diminished privacy)
- Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (cell‑phone privacy principles referenced)
- Welch v. California, 5 Cal.4th 228 (forfeiture of sentencing objections)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (probationers’ diminished privacy interests)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (obvious legal error exception to forfeiture)