The People v. Pirali
217 Cal. App. 4th 1341
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Pirali pleaded no contest to felony possession of child pornography; probation imposed with internet-related restrictions and prohibitions on pornographic material.
- Written probation conditions differed from oral pronouncements; oral conditions control when they conflict with a signed written order.
- Trial court imposed multiple internet-related restrictions: no access without prior approval, reporting emails/sites/passwords, no data encryption.
- Challenge on appeal: two probation conditions claimed overbroad and vague—Internet access restriction and purchase/possession of pornographic material.
- Court analyzes under Sheena K. and related cases, reviews oral conditions, and modifies conditions for clarity and constitutionality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Internet access probation condition overbroad or vague without a knowledge requirement? | People argue broader restriction serves public safety. | Pirali argues overbroad and vague, lacks scienter. | Internet condition is not overbroad; but add knowledge requirement. |
| Is the prohibition on purchasing/possessing sexually explicit material unconstitutionally vague? | People contend it prevents access to explicit material as defined by officer. | Pirali contends lack of advance knowledge renders vague. | Condition modified to require prior informant knowledge of pornographic nature. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) (standard for reviewing probation conditions; need for precision)
- People v. Turner, 155 Cal.App.4th 1432 (Cal. App. 2007) (improper vague standard; need explicit knowledge requirement)
- People v. Patel, 196 Cal.App.4th 956 (Cal. App. 2011) (discussed knowledge requirement in probation conditions)
- People v. Stevens, 119 Cal.App.4th 1228 (Cal. App. 2004) (Internet access restrictions context; acknowledged importance of tailoring)