People v. Smith
8 Cal. App. 5th 977
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Daniel Smith pleaded no contest to attempted possession of a controlled substance for sale (Pen. Code § 664; Health & Safety Code § 11378) and was granted three years probation.
- At arrest Smith carried two cell phones (one password-protected), a large knife, and $1,300; he admitted intending to buy a quarter-pound of methamphetamine to resell and used a phone to communicate with the dealer.
- The trial court ordered Smith to register as a narcotics offender under Health & Safety Code § 11590 and imposed a probation condition authorizing warrantless searches of his person, residence, and property, explicitly including cell phones and computers, and requiring him to provide passwords.
- Smith challenged (1) the court’s authority to impose § 11590 registration for an attempted § 11378 offense, and (2) the search condition as unreasonable, vague, and overbroad (specifically the password and electronic-search aspects).
- The Court of Appeal reviewed statutory construction of § 11590 (and related §§ 11592–11593) and applied established probation-condition standards (Lent/Bushman framework) and vagueness/overbreadth precedents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 11590 authorizes registration following conviction for an attempt to commit a listed narcotics offense | § 11590 applies to attempts; related statutory scheme (§§ 11592–11593) shows Legislature intended attempts to be covered | § 11590 does not expressly reference attempts and thus cannot authorize registration for inchoate convictions | Court upheld Crowles: § 11590 applies to attempts; harmonizing statutes and legislative intent require that construction; rule of lenity inapplicable |
| Whether probation condition requiring production of passwords for cell phones/computers is reasonable | Condition is reasonably related to crime and future dangerousness because Smith used phones to arrange drug sales and one phone was password-protected | Password requirement and electronic-search sweep are unreasonable, vague, and overbroad | Password requirement upheld as reasonable; vagueness challenge fails (term used in context of phones/computers); overbreadth claim forfeited for lack of timely objection below |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Crowles, 20 Cal.App.4th 114 (Fifth Dist.) (interpreting § 11590 to include attempts)
- People v. Manzo, 53 Cal.4th 880 (plain-meaning and statutory-construction principles)
- Lungren v. Deukmejian, 45 Cal.3d 727 (statutory interpretation; harmonize provisions and legislative intent)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (narrow exception to waiver rule for facial vagueness/overbreadth challenges)
- People v. Nuckles, 56 Cal.4th 601 (limits on applying rule of lenity)
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (standard for invalidating probation conditions)
- People v. Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228 (waiver of appellate challenges to probation conditions for failure to object)
- People v. Chardon, 77 Cal.App.4th 205 (trial court discretion to impose reasonable probation conditions)