People v. Patrick F. (In re Patrick F.)

Decision Date12 November 2015
Docket NumberA143586
Citation242 Cal.App.4th 104,194 Cal.Rptr.3d 847
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
PartiesIN RE PATRICK F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Patrick F., Defendant and Appellant.

Matthew Zwerling and Maggie Shrout, under appointments by the Court of Appeal First District Appellate Project, 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 and Ronald E. Niver, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion

NEEDHAM, J.

Patrick F. (appellant) was declared a ward of the juvenile court after admitting an allegation of second degree burglary. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602; Pen. Code, § 459.) He appeals from a dispositional order placing him on probation, and challenges an electronics search condition requiring him to [s]ubmit ... any electronics and passwords under your control to search by Probation Officer or peace office[r] with or without a search warrant.” We reject his claim that the condition must be stricken in its entirety because it is unreasonable under People v. Lent(1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545(Lent) and poses a risk of illegal eavesdropping under Penal Code section 632. We agree that as written, the condition was overbroad and must be modified.

I. BACKGROUND

On the morning of June 11, 2014, 17–year–old appellant burglarized the home of his next-door neighbor with the assistance of an adult cousin who was on parole. The neighbor had left earlier in the day, and when she returned home around noon the house had been ransacked and a gold ring and about $87 in rolled coins were missing. After he was apprehended, appellant admitted to police that he had entered the neighbor's home and taken the property while his cousin acted as a lookout.

The district attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition alleging appellant had committed a first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The petition was amended to allege second degree burglary and appellant admitted the allegation. (Ibid.) During an interview with the probation officer who prepared a report for the dispositional hearing, appellant said he had decided to steal from his neighbor because he wanted marijuana and he did not feel comfortable asking his parents for money he was going to spend on drugs. He acknowledged smoking marijuana up to three times a day and admitted he had not attended school regularly for a long time. He also acknowledged his marijuana use had influenced his decision not to attend school.

At the dispositional hearing, the court adjudged appellant a ward and placed him on probation, with appellant to reside with family members. The conditions of probation included a search term requiring appellant to [s]ubmit person and any vehicle, room or property [and] any electronics and passwords under your control to search by Probation Officer or peace office[r] with or without a search warrant at any time of day or night.” Defense counsel objected to appellant's cell phone and electronics being included in the search term, arguing there was no nexus between such items and the burglary. The court disagreed: “Well, it's also important to have as part of his supervision, given somebody who['s] been at that point where he was smoking, I think, three times a day. And I find from practice, that minors who are particularly using drugs or involved in offenses will very often post details about any offenses that they have or even photographs of them with drugs or paraphernalia or themselves smoking marijuana with friends. So I think it's a very important part of supervision, but your objection is noted for the record.”

II. DISCUSSION

Appellant argues the electronics search condition imposed by the court is invalid under Lent, supra,15 Cal.3d at p. 486, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545, because it has no relationship to the underlying offense, relates to conduct that is not illegal, and is not reasonably related to deterring future criminal activity. He additionally claims the condition is unconstitutionally overbroad and poses a risk of illegal eavesdropping under California's Invasion of Privacy Act (Pen. Code, § 630 et seq.). These issues have been recently addressed in three published cases from different divisions of the Court of Appeal for the First District, each of which considered the legality of a virtually identical electronics search condition.

In In re Erica R.(2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 907, 910–911, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 919(Erica R.), Division Two of this court held the condition was invalid under Lent,because it had no relationship to the commitment offense of misdemeanor possession of Ecstasy. Having reached this conclusion, the court found it unnecessary to address the defendant's constitutional challenge or her claim the probation condition would allow illegal eavesdropping.

In In re Malik J.(2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 896, 899–900, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 370(Malik J.), Division Three found the condition to be unconstitutionally overbroad in a case where the defendant's juvenile probation had been violated based on his possession of marijuana and his commission of three robberies, one of which involved an iPhone. The court in Malik J.modified the search condition to eliminate the requirement that the defendant supply passwords to his social media sites, but allowed a search of the phone itself after it had been disabled from any Internet or cellular connection for the purpose of determining whether it had been stolen.

Most recently, in In re Ricardo P.(2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 676, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 883(Ricardo P.), Division One considered a challenge to an electronics search condition in a case where the defendant had been adjudicated a ward based on two counts of residential burglary and, like appellant in this case, had admitted drug use. The Ricardo P.court concluded that although an electronics search condition was valid under Lentbecause it was reasonably related to monitoring the defendant's future criminality, the condition was overbroad in allowing the probation officer access to data that was not reasonably likely to reveal whether the defendant was using drugs. (Ricardo P.,at pp. 886–87, 889–97.) It also rejected the defendant's claim that the condition posed a risk of electronic eavesdropping based on his lack of standing to raise the issue on behalf of the third parties who were arguably affected. (Id.at p. 888–89.)

Having had the benefit of our colleagues' intellectual legwork and thoughtful analyses, we are persuaded by the rationale of Ricardo P.,the circumstances of which are the most similar to the case before us. We conclude the challenged electronics search condition, though reasonable under Lent,was overbroad as drafted, and order it modified accordingly. We reject appellant's contention that the condition must be stricken in its entirety due to the risk of unlawful eavesdropping on third parties.

A. Reasonableness of Electronics Search Condition UnderLent

Welfare and Institutions Code section 730, subdivision (b)authorizes 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.” (See In re Sheena K.(2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 716, 153 P.3d 282.) A condition of probation that would be legally impermissible for an adult criminal defendant is not necessarily unreasonable for a juvenile receiving guidance and supervision from the juvenile court. (Ibid.; In re Walter P.(2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 95, 100, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 668(Walter P.).)

“An appellate court will not disturb the juvenile court's broad discretion over probation conditions absent an abuse of discretion. [Citations.] We grant this broad discretion so that the juvenile court may serve its rehabilitative function and further the legislative policies of the juvenile court system. [Citations.] [¶] In fashioning the conditions of probation, the juvenile court should consider the minor's entire social history in addition to the circumstances of the crime. [Citation.] (Walter P., supra,170 Cal.App.4th at p. 100, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 668.)

Under Lent,“ ‘[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....” [Citation.] [Citation.] This test is conjunctive—all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. [Citations.] As such, even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is valid as long as the condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality. [Citation.] (People v. Olguin(2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379–380, 87 Cal.Rptr.3d 199, 198 P.3d 1(Olguin), italics added; see In re T.C.(2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 837, 845–846, 93 Cal.Rptr.3d 447[applying same test in juvenile context].)

In the case before us, an electronics search condition was reasonably related to future criminality even if it was not directly related to the underlying burglary. Appellant told the probation officer he used marijuana frequently and had committed the burglary to get money to buy marijuana. He also acknowledged he was not going to school on a regular basis, due in part to his marijuana use. Both drug use and truancy have been recognized by the Legislature as “precursor[s] of serious criminality.” (In re P.A.(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 23, 36, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 300[citing legislative history of Welf. & Inst. Code, § 729.3, authorizing drug testing for delinquent minors who remain placed in parents' custody]; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
90 cases
  • People v. P.O. (In re P.O.)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 5 d2 Abril d2 2016
    ...(In re Alejandro R. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 556, 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 651, review granted Mar. 9, 2016, S232240; In re Patrick F. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 104, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 847, review granted Feb. 17, 2016, S231428; In re Ricardo P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 676, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 883, review grante......
  • People v. Alejandro R. (In re Alejandro R.)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 30 d3 Dezembro d3 2015
    ...school everyday [sic ]."2 The reasoning of Ricardo P. was recently adopted by Division Five of this court in In re Patrick F. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 104, 109, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 847.3 This was consistent with the Supreme Court's earlier approval of the imposition of a warrantless search condit......
  • People v. Juan R. (In re Juan R.)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 2 d3 Maio d3 2018
    ...in a number of cases. (See, e.g., In re Ricardo P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 676, review granted February 17, 2016, S230923; In re Patrick F. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 104, review granted February 17, 2016, S231428; In re Alejandro R. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 556, review granted March 9, 2016, S232......
  • People v. Mark C. (In re Mark C.)
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 28 d4 Janeiro d4 2016
    ...Alejandro R. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 556, 657–660, 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 651 (Alejandro R. ) [Division One]; In re Patrick F. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 104, 111, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 847 (Patrick F. ) [Division Five]; In re Ricardo P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 676, 686–687, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 883 (Ricardo P. ) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Punishment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books California Drunk Driving Law - Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • 30 d3 Março d3 2022
    ...leading to Wardship. See, In re Erica R . (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 907; In re J.B . 242 Cal.App.4th 749 Cf. , In re Patrick F. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 104 and In re Alejandro (2015) 243 Cal. App.4th 556 held that access to a teen’s electronic communications can be a useful tool in tracking dru......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT