People v. Erica R. (In re Erica R.)

• Decision Date: 28 September 2015
• Docket Number: A143215
• Parties: IN RE ERICA R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Erica R., Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

240 Cal.App.4th 907

192 Cal.Rptr.3d 919

IN RE ERICA R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.The People, Plaintiff and Respondent

v.Erica R., Defendant and Appellant.

A143215

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

Filed September 28, 2015

Johathan Soglin, L. Richard Braucher, By Appointment of the Court of Appeal, Under the First District Appellate Project Case Management System, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Donna M. Provenzano, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Ronald E. Niver, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Miller, J.

INTRODUCTION

A juvenile defendant admitted to misdemeanor possession of ecstasy after a school counselor found a baggie of pills in the juvenile's purse. As a condition of probation, the juvenile court required defendant to submit to a search of her electronic devices, and to turn over her passwords to her probation officer. We are called on to decide whether this search condition was unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545 (Lent ). We conclude that because there was no evidence connecting the juvenile's electronic device or social media usage to her offense or to a risk of future criminal conduct, it was an unreasonable condition. Accordingly, we will modify the judgment to strike this condition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Our brief statement of the facts is taken from the Alameda County Probation Department's dispositional report.

On March 27, 2014, defendant Erica R. attended a meeting with her school counselor. The counselor noted that Erica was fidgety and her pupils were dilated, leading the counselor to believe Erica had taken an illegal drug. Erica eventually left the meeting, but left her purse behind. The counselor opened Erica's purse and found a sandwich bag containing 30–45 orange pills. The counselor took one of the pills and put the rest of the pills back in Erica's purse. When Erica returned, the counselor accused Erica of selling drugs on campus. Erica grabbed her purse and left the office. The school counselor called the police. The pill taken by the counselor tested positive for amphetamine.

The district attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 602, subdivision (a), alleging that Erica had possessed ecstasy in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), a felony. The wardship petition was later amended to allege misdemeanor possession of ecstasy, a charge which Erica admitted.

At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court adjudged Erica a ward of the court and placed her under the supervision of the probation office, with various conditions. One of them was this: “You must submit to a test of your blood, breath, or urine to detect the presence of [drugs] in your system and a search of any containers you may have or own, your vehicle, residence, or electronics day or night at the request of a Probation Officer or peace officer [.]” The court stated that “part of that search will include giving your passwords to your [probation officer.]” Erica's counsel objected that the electronic search condition was overbroad, that there had not been any “issue with social media,” and that Erica did not have a cell phone. The court was not persuaded: “I found in practice that many juveniles, many minors, who are involved in drugs tend to post information about themselves and drug usage. They post photos of themselves using drugs and drug paraphernalia. This is the way of keeping track [of] her drug usage, not just a way of testing her.”¹

DISCUSSION

Erica challenges the probation condition requiring her to submit her electronic devices to search and to provide her electronic passwords to her probation officer. She contends that this condition is invalid under Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d 481, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545 ; that it is unconstitutionally overbroad; and that it creates a risk of illegal eavesdropping under the Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code section 630, et seq. We agree that the condition is invalid under the Lent standard and therefore do not reach Erica's constitutional or statutory arguments. (See Sanchez v. City of Modesto (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 660, 671, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 821 [“Principles of judicial restraint ... require us to avoid deciding a case on constitutional grounds unless absolutely necessary[.]”] )

A. Whether this Appeal is Moot

On March 9, 2015, Erica's attorney informed us that the juvenile court had dismissed Erica's case following her successful completion of probation. Erica's counsel acknowledged that this development rendered the appeal moot, but requested that we nonetheless address the merits of the appeal as this case raises issues of broad public interest that are likely to recur. Counsel cited a number of appeals from judgments of the same juvenile court that are pending in this District and which challenge an electronic search condition identical to the one at issue here.

Because Erica is no longer subject to the search condition, her challenge is moot. However, “ ‘[i]f an action involves a matter of continuing public interest and the issue is likely to recur, a court may exercise an inherent discretion to resolve that issue, even though an event occurring during its pendency would normally render the matter moot.’ [Citation.]” (In re R.V. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 239, 245, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 702.) Here, it appears that the juvenile court has made the challenged search condition a standard condition in drug-related cases. Accordingly, this appeal presents issues that are likely to recur, and we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of Erica's challenge to the electronic search condition.

B. Whether the Electronic Search Condition Is Invalid Under Lent

Welfare and Institutions Code section 730, subdivision (b) empowers the juvenile court to “impose and require any and all reasonable conditions that it may determine fitting and proper to the end that justice may be done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced.” In In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 584, we discussed the principles underlying the imposition of probation conditions on minors: “ ‘The state, when it asserts jurisdiction over a minor, stands in the shoes of the parents' [citation], thereby occupying a ‘unique role ... in caring for the minor's well-being.’ [Citation.] ... [¶] The permissible scope of discretion in formulating terms of juvenile probation is even greater than that allowed for adults. ‘[E]ven where there is an invasion of protected freedoms “the power of the state to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults.” ’ [Citation.] This is because juveniles are deemed to be ‘more in need of guidance and supervision than adults, and because a minor's constitutional rights are more circumscribed.’ [Citation.] Thus, ‘ “a condition of probation that would be unconstitutional or otherwise improper for an adult probationer may be permissible for a minor under the supervision of the juvenile court.” ’ [Citations.]” (Id. at pp. 909–910, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 584.)

We review the juvenile court's probation conditions for abuse of discretion, and such discretion will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse. (In re P.A. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 23, 33, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 300 ; In re Walter P. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 95, 100, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 668.)

While the juvenile court's discretion is broad, it is not unlimited. Our Supreme Court in Lent stated the criteria for assessing the validity of a condition of probation as follows: “A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it ‘(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality[.]’ ” (Lent, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 486, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545.) “Conversely, a condition of probation which requires or forbids conduct which is not itself criminal is valid if that conduct is reasonably related to the crime of which the defendant was convicted or to future criminality.” (Ibid. ) The Lent test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before we will invalidate a term of probation. (People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 199, 198 P.3d 1.) Courts have “consistently held that juvenile probation conditions must be judged by the same three-part standard applied to adult probation conditions under Lent [.]” (In re D.G. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 47, 52, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 639 (D.G. ); see also In re Josh W. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1, 6, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 701.)

The challenged electronic search condition has no relationship to the crime of misdemeanor possession of ecstasy. There is nothing in the original or amended juvenile petitions or the record that connects Erica's use of electronic devices or social media to her possession of any illegal substance. The Attorney General argues that Erica's cell phone and electronic devices “could have been used to negotiate the sales of the illegal substance.” The problem with this argument is that there is no evidence suggesting that Erica—who was convicted of misdemeanor possession, not selling any illegal substance—ever used an electronic device in this way.

Obviously, the typical use of electronic devices and of social media is not itself criminal. “Modern cell phones are not just another technological convenience. With all they contain and all they may reveal, they hold for many Americans ‘the privacies of life[.]’ ” (Riley v. California (2014) –––U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2473, 2494–2495, 189 L.Ed.2d 430.) The Attorney General nonetheless argues that a “cell phone can be the instrumentality of a crime.” True enough,...