People v. Guzman
Decision Date | 09 May 2018 |
Docket Number | A149740 |
Citation | 23 Cal.App.5th 53,232 Cal.Rptr.3d 503 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Benito GUZMAN, Defendant and Appellant. |
Counsel for Appellant: Richard A. Tamor, Oakland, under appointment by the Court of Appeal under the First District, Appellate Project Independent Case System
Counsel for Respondent: Xavier Becerra Attorney General of California Gerald E. Engler Chief Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey M. Laurence Senior Assistant Attorney General Seth K. Schalit Supervising Deputy Attorney General Laurence K. Sullivan Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Benito Guzman appeals from an order modifying the conditions of his supervised probation to explicitly authorize warrantless searches of his electronic devices. Guzman contends (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the modification because no new circumstances existed and (2) the electronic search probation condition violates Guzman's constitutional right to privacy. We affirm the order.
In April 2015, Guzman was charged with two felonies: (count 1) arranging a meeting with a minor for the purpose of committing a sexual offense ( Pen. Code, § 288.4, subd. (b)1 ); and (count 2) attempting to commit a lewd act with a minor under the age of 14 (§ 664/288, subd. (a) ). The charges were based on evidence gathered by officers conducting an undercover "sting" operation, which showed that Guzman used his cell phone and the internet Web site myredbook.com to arrange and negotiate payment for a sexual encounter with a 19-year-old female named "Sexy Shauna" and her 13-year-old sister "Jenny."
In July 2015, Guzman pleaded guilty to the count 1 felony sex offense pursuant to a negotiated disposition, which provided that the court would dismiss count 2, suspend imposition of judgment, and impose a sentence of nine months in jail and three years felony probation. As part of the negotiated disposition, Guzman acknowledged that he would be required to register as a sex offender and be subject to "Sex Offender Caseload Conditions" of probation (also called SAFER probation conditions).
On September 1, 2015, Guzman was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated disposition. At his sentencing hearing, Guzman reviewed and separately acknowledged the SAFER probation conditions, which were incorporated into the terms of his probation. Among other things, the SAFER probation conditions required participation in sex offender treatment/programs, restricted interactions with children, and provided that Guzman may not "view, purchase, possess or have access to any videotapes, films and/or magazines, CD's or any medium which depict minor(s) or people representing themselves as minors(s) in sexual activity."
The SAFER probation conditions also impose the following requirements on Guzman: "Submit to warrantless search and seizure of person, property, personal business or vehicle any time of the day or night or residence any time of the day or reasonable hour of the night by any Probation or Law Enforcement Officer"; and "Provide Probation Officer with keys, combinations or access codes to any and all gates or security doors which are required for entry onto any property where you reside."
While Guzman was on probation, the ECPA went into effect on January 1, 2016. (§ 1546, et seq.; Stats. 2015, ch. 651, § 1.) As pertinent here, the ECPA precludes a government entity from accessing "electronic device information by means of physical interaction or electronic communication with the electronic device" unless a statutory exception applies. (§ 1546.1, subds. (a)(3) & (c).) Statutory exceptions include obtaining a warrant (§ 1546.1, subd. (c)(1) ), or obtaining the "the specific consent of the authorized possessor of the device" (§ 1546.1, subd. (c)(4) ).
Another exception, which was added by a September 2016 amendment to the ECPA, states: "(c) A government entity may access electronic device information by means of physical interaction or electronic communication with the device only as follows: [¶] ... [¶] (10) Except where prohibited by state or federal law, if the device is seized from an authorized possessor of the device who is subject to an electronic device search as a clear and unambiguous condition of probation, mandatory supervision, or pretrial release." (§ 1546.1, subd. (c)(10).)
In September 2016, Guzman's probation officer filed a petition "for a modification of probation." The petition alleged that Guzman's offense involved the use of an electronic device to communicate or attempt to communicate with a minor "with the intent to seduce or arrange to meet the minor and engage in sexual acts or to view, download or distribute child pornography." The petition further stated: "In order to ensure the effective rehabilitation and supervision of the defendant it is recommended that probation be modified," and that the court order a "search and seizure term and conditions pertaining to all electronic devices."
A hearing on the petition was held in September and October 2016. Guzman objected that a modification was improper absent "some new facts or changed circumstances or a violation." The People argued that "the change in the law would be sufficient for this Court to find a change in circumstances to now impose the search and seizure conditions which would have applied previously." The trial court stated that there was a "nexus" between the search condition and Guzman's offense because Guzman used a data processing and storage device—his cell phone—to commit the crime. The court also found that Guzman was previously ordered to submit to search and seizure and it was "important to both supervision and rehabilitation that his personal data storage devices be subject to search as well and based on the fact that that's what he used to complete the activity which formed the basis for this crime." Therefore, the court made the following order:
Following this ruling, Guzman's counsel objected again that "there is not sufficient new facts or changed circumstances." The People disputed this claim, reiterating that the ECPA went into effect in January 2016, after Guzman entered his plea and received his original sentence.
Before concluding the hearing, the court made the following statement:
Guzman contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order a modification of Guzman's probation conditions to include an electronic search condition. According to Guzman, jurisdiction to modify the terms of a defendant's probation requires new facts or changed circumstances, and in this case the trial court erroneously relied on the same facts "that were in existence at the time of the original order."
A sentencing court has broad power to revoke or modify a term of probation at any time during the probationary period, which includes the power to extend the probationary term. ( People v. Cookson (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1091, 1095 & 1100, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 176, 820 P.2d 278 ( Cookson ).) This power is not limited to cases where a probation violation has been committed. ( Id . at p. 1098, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 176, 820 P.2d 278.) However, ( Id. at p. 1095, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 176, 820 P.2d 278, italics omitted, quoting In re Clark (1959) 51 Cal.2d 838, 840, 337 P.2d 67.)
In Cookson , supra , 54 Cal.3d 1091, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 176, 820 P.2d 278, a condition of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Wright
...does not establish that a warrantless electronic search condition of probation is per se unconstitutional." ( People v. Guzman (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 53, 65, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 503.) Riley also stated that data stored on cell phones was "qualitatively different" than physical records. ( Riley, ......
-
People v. Salcido
...is impossible, and that practical necessity will justify some infringement." [Citation.]’ [Citations.]" ( People v. Guzman (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 53, 64, 232 Cal.Rptr.3d 503.)"We review ‘constitutional challenges to probation conditions de novo.’ [Citation.]" ( People v. Guzman , supra , 23 ......
-
Marriage G.C. v. R.W.
... ... income tax and the transfer inheritance tax on the same basis as a spouse"].) New Jersey law expressly provides, "The obligations that two people have to each other as a result of creating a domestic partnership shall be limited to the provisions of this act." (N.J.S.A. 26:8A-6.a.) ... ...
-
People v. Tommy M. (In re Tommy M.)
...of a cell phone when he was arrested for his crime. (Maldonado, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at pp. 141, 144-145; see also, People v. Guzman (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 53, 65 [condition upheld where, as part of a sting operation, defendant used his cell phone and a website to arrange for a sexual encou......
-
Table of cases
...v. Guzman (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 761, §§1:21.6.1, 10:31.6 People v. Guzman (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1282, §9:91.3 People v. Guzman (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 53, §10:25.2 People v. Guzman-Pena (2016) UNPUBLISHED (Second Dist. COA, Div. 3 – Docket No. B268866), §1:34 People v. Hackler (1993) 13 Cal.A......
-
Table of Cases null
...v. Guzman, 8 Cal. 5th 673, 256 Cal. Rptr. 3d 112, 453 P.3d 1130 (Cal. 2019)—Ch. 1, §3.2.2(3)(b); Ch. 2, §5.1.3(1)(e) People v. Guzman, 23 Cal. App. 5th 53, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 503 (1st Dist. 2018)—Ch. 1, §3.2.2(2)(g)[1] People v. Hagen, 269 Cal. App. 2d 175, 74 Cal. Rptr. 675 (2d Dist. 1969)—......
-
Punishment
...jurisdiction of the court, as there is no factual basis to support it. See, In re Clark (1959) 51 Cal.2d 838. People v. Guzman (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 53 extends the holding in Cookson and provides that probation can be modified based upon a subsequent change in the law. §10:25.3 Defendant’s ......
-
Chapter 1 - §3. Limits & exceptions to admissibility
...electronic devices, e-mail, digital documents, text messages, and geolocation information. See People v. Guzman (1st Dist.2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 53, 57. The Act was enacted in part to address the law and resolve the concerns raised in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, U.S. v. Jones (2012) 565......