People v. A.S. (In re A.S.)

• Decision Date: 16 March 2016
• Docket Number: A144487
• Citation: 245 Cal.App.4th 758,200 Cal.Rptr.3d 100
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: IN RE A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.S., Defendant and Appellant.

245 Cal.App.4th 758

200 Cal.Rptr.3d 100

IN RE A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.A.S., Defendant and Appellant.

A144487

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.

Filed March 16, 2016

Counsel for Appellant: Stephanie M. Adraktas, by appointment of the Court of Appeal under the First District Appellate Project's Assisted Case System.

Counsel for Respondent: Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General, Seth K. Schalit, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Donna M. Provenzano, Supervising Deputy Attorney General.

RUVOLO, P.J.

I.INTRODUCTION

In this appeal from a disposition order declaring her a ward of the juvenile court, A.S. (appellant) challenges two conditions of her probation. The first challenged condition required appellant to submit her "electronics including passwords under [her] control" to warrantless searches by the probation department and law enforcement (electronic search condition). Second, appellant challenges a probation condition which prohibited her from unauthorized or unsupervised presence on school property (school grounds condition).

Appellant is not the first minor to object to an electronic search condition. In fact the juvenile court judge who imposed this condition on appellant is the same beleaguered judge whose substantially identical electronic search condition was: stricken by Division Two of this appellate district in In re Erica R. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 907, 192 Cal.Rptr.3d 919 (Erica R. ) and in In re Mark C. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 520, 197 Cal.Rptr.3d 865 (Mark C. ); not stricken but found to be overbroad and modified by Division Three in In re Malik J . (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 896, 899–900, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 370 (Malik J . ); stricken by that same division in In re J.B. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 749, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 589 (J.B.); not stricken but found to be overbroad and remanded to the juvenile court for modification by Division One in both In re Ricardo P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 676, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 883 (Ricardo P. ) and In re Alejandro R . (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 556, 196 Cal.Rptr.3d 651 ; and not stricken but found to be overbroad and modified by Division Five in In re Patrick F. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 104, 194 Cal.Rptr.3d 847 (Patrick F.)¹

Under the particularized facts of this case, we conclude that the electronic search condition as applied to appellant is reasonable under the test established by People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 124 Cal.Rptr. 905, 541 P.2d 545 (Lent ), and is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Accordingly, we affirm the imposition of this probation condition. However, we agree with appellant that the school grounds condition is unconstitutionally vague because it does not incorporate a "knowledge" requirement so as to prohibit the unauthorized or unsupervised presence on property she knows is school property. We order that probation condition modified accordingly.

II.PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUNDS

A. The Wardship Petition and Appellant's Detention At Juvenile Hall

On December 19, 2014, the Alameda County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602,² alleging that 17–year–old appellant committed a misdemeanor assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen.Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4) ). The alleged victim of the crime was appellant's mother (mother).

According to the probation department's intake report, on December 17, 2014, Oakland police responded to a report of a family disturbance and battery at mother's home. When they arrived mother had visible swelling to her left eye. She reported that appellant had been away for several days but had returned home and caused a disturbance. When mother tried to stop appellant from taking property from the home that did not belong to her, appellant cursed at and threatened mother, saying "I'm going to take these, get the fuck up out of my way, bitch. I'll kill you!" She then caused mother to slip and fall, grabbed her, dragged her out of the house, and punched her in the face multiple times with a closed fist. Neighbors tried to intervene without success. Mother crawled back into the house, but appellant continued to threaten her through the window until police arrived and arrested her. Mother further claimed there were two prior unreported incidents when appellant assaulted her. In addition, appellant, who had been diagnosed at age 13 as having bipolar disorder, had not attended school for more than a year, came and went from the home as she pleased, smoked marijuana, and was out of control. The probation department recommended that, despite appellant's "minimal record," the severity of the attack on mother and the need to protect mother's safety warranted that appellant be detained until disposition.

On December 22, 2014, the juvenile court ordered appellant detained for her own protection and the protection of others. Crisis intervention was ordered and the matter was continued to the next day. On December 23, appellant admitted the allegation in the section 602 petition and the juvenile court exercised jurisdiction over her. Pending disposition, it was ordered that appellant remain in juvenile hall for the protection of herself and others. A guidance evaluation was ordered, as well as crisis intervention. The disposition hearing was set for January 8, 2015.³

B. Disposition

1. Reports

The probation department's disposition report included summaries of interviews with appellant, mother, and other family members. Appellant reported having "issues" with mother since she was 12, and that her sister and grandmother also had poor relations with mother. Appellant's father died before she was born, and she claimed that mother had kicked her out of the home approximately four times since she was 14. Around that time, appellant was diagnosed with depression and was prescribed Prozac. But, she stopped taking it because she did not like the way it made her feel. She received counseling and had been seeing a therapist for about two years. Appellant admitted that she smoked marijuana about two times per month to deal with her stress. She denied using alcohol or other drugs. Appellant told the interviewer that she no longer wanted to live with mother. Appellant's role models were her grandmother and sister. She noted that she did not have friends, but "associates" she met through a youth program. She hoped to go to college like her sister.

Mother reported that appellant had been having behavioral problems since she was in the fourth grade when she started having fights with other students and refused to follow rules. She ran away from home four times since then. Mother also reported that appellant had been using marijuana and alcohol frequently, and was involved romantically with a 23–year–old adult. Appellant had been diagnosed with depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. Mother was opposed to appellant going to live with her grandmother, who mother suspected was taking drugs, or with appellant's 20–year–old sister (sister), who was unable to look after appellant at night.

Sister was interviewed and reported that she had two jobs and was currently enrolled in college. Like appellant, sister left home at an early age because of conflict with, and alleged physical abuse by, mother. Sister stated she wanted appellant to live with her, and grandmother would share responsibility for appellant by looking after her while sister worked her graveyard shifts.

Grandmother was also interviewed and agreed with sister that mother's home was not good for appellant because of their poor relationship. Grandmother reported that mother "is a very violent person," and that sister's home would be a better placement for appellant. Grandmother also said she would find a larger apartment if it was determined that her home was the best placement for appellant.

A risk assessment conducted by the probation department concluded that appellant had a moderate risk of reoffending within a year. The primary concerns were appellant's poor relationship with mother, which had resulted in her living the life of a runaway for relatively long periods, and the fact that she had not attended school for more than one and one-half years. The report concluded that appellant was in immediate need of services to help her resolve her family and social problems. The department did not oppose a placement with either grandmother or sister, but expressed a preference for grandmother due to sister's work schedule. Whatever placement was made, the probation department recommended that appellant be "intensely monitored," and provided with therapy services to help her "get back on track."

Prior to disposition, the Alameda County Mental Health Department evaluated appellant and filed a report.⁴ The mental health department concluded that appellant had a moderate degree of emotional disturbance, exhibited in part by a long history of having difficulty with self-regulation in school. It was noted that appellant also had a "high potential for violence towards her mother," and a moderate degree of potential for violence in the community. The report concluded that appellant presented many challenges including mental health, social/behavioral, and educational needs that would best be met by a coordinated, multi-disciplinary team. She needed to be in a family setting where her daily activities could be monitored. She also needed intensive therapeutic services, such as day treatment, and a specialized school designed for emotionally disturbed youths. If family placement resulted in inadequate supervision, then a higher level of care, such as a residential treatment facility, should be considered for her.

2. The January 8 Hearing

At the January 8 disposition hearing, the court stated that it had considered the relevant reports and then...