People v. Nassetta, 207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 791

In 2014 Nassetta (age 28) was arrested after a late-night traffic stop; officers found syringes, fresh injection marks, quantities of suspected cocaine and methamphetamine, packaging materials, a scale, a notebook of transactions, and a locked container with a 9mm firearm.
He pleaded no contest to felony possession for sale of cocaine (Health & Safety Code §11351) and misdemeanor DUI with a prior (Veh. Code §23152(e)) pursuant to a plea agreement; remaining counts were dismissed and he received five years’ formal probation.
The probation officer recommended a set of standard conditions including a nightly curfew of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.; the trial court adopted that curfew by selecting a preprinted probation form box.
Defense counsel objected, arguing the curfew was not part of the plea bargain, imposed a substantial burden on an adult, and was unrelated to future criminality given drug dealing and use occur at all hours.
The trial court justified the curfew by anecdotal experience that most DUIs occur at night and by reference to Nassetta’s substance abuse, and imposed the curfew as a probation condition.
On appeal the sole contested issue was whether the curfew probation condition was valid under the Lent test and therefore constitutional; the appellate court struck the curfew and affirmed the judgment otherwise.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a 10:00 p.m.–6:00 a.m. curfew is a valid probation condition under People v. Lent	Curfew is reasonably related to preventing future drug- and DUI-related crimes because such crimes are more likely to occur at night	Curfew has no relationship to the offenses (sale of cocaine and DUI), is not itself criminal to be outside at night, and is not reasonably related to future criminality	Curfew invalid: fails all three Lent prongs and is stricken from the probation order
Whether court needed to address defendant’s constitutional challenges to the curfew	AG: implied constitutionality if Lent test satisfied	Nassetta: curfew is unconstitutionally overbroad/intrusive (alternative argument)	Court did not reach constitutional arguments because the curfew was invalid under Lent

People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (1975) (sets three-prong test for validity of probation conditions)
People v. Olguin, 45 Cal.4th 375 (2008) (explains Lent is conjunctive and frames review questions)
Solis v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.2d 774 (1966) (nighttime search-warrant context; discussed but distinguished)
State v. Donovan, 568 P.2d 1107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977) (out-of-state decision approving curfew on probationer; court finds it unpersuasive)