## Facts

- A juvenile court placed Pedro Q. on probation after he admitted assault with a deadly weapon.
- The court-ordered terms included a nine-month camp commitment, no association with members of a specified gang, participation in therapy as directed, search and seizure submission, and no use or possession of alcohol, drugs, or weapons.
- After Pedro returned home, his probation officer added new terms not ordered by the court: an 8 p.m. curfew and a prohibition on entering a defined geographic area described as the gang’s operating territory.
- Pedro initialed a probation form acknowledging the added officer-imposed terms.
- After Pedro admitted a later drug-use petition, probation officers detained a vehicle in the restricted area around 10 p.m. and identified Pedro as a passenger.
- A petition alleged probation violations based on the officer-imposed curfew and the officer-imposed geographic restriction; the juvenile court sustained the petition and committed Pedro to the California Youth Authority.
- Pedro appealed, challenging the probation officer’s authority to impose the new travel-related conditions and arguing the restrictions were unconstitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether a probation officer may unilaterally add substantive probation conditions—such as a curfew and a geographic no-entry zone—when the juvenile court did not order those conditions.
2. Whether the officer-imposed geographic restriction constituted an unconstitutional restraint on liberty and freedom of movement.

## Decision

- The appellate court held the officer-imposed travel restriction could not support a finding of probation violation because it was unilaterally imposed by the probation officer rather than ordered by the court.
- The court treated the curfew and geographic exclusion as material new burdens on liberty, not merely administrative details implementing existing court-ordered terms.
- The court further indicated the breadth of the geographic restriction raised constitutional concerns, particularly given that the court’s original order addressed association with gang members rather than blanket exclusion from a neighborhood.
- The court reversed the probation-violation finding to the extent it rested on the unlawfully imposed travel-related condition(s).

## Legal Principles

- Only the court has authority to impose or modify substantive conditions of probation; a probation officer may not add new independent probation terms that materially increase restraints on liberty.
- Probation officers may supervise, administer, and specify reasonable details for implementing court-ordered conditions, but they may not enlarge the substantive scope of probation beyond what the court ordered.
- Significant restrictions on movement must be reasonably related to legitimate rehabilitative or public-safety purposes, narrowly drawn, and judicially imposed rather than created solely through probation-officer discretion.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated probation-violation findings based on curfew and geographic travel restrictions added solely by a probation officer, reaffirming that substantive probation conditions must be imposed or modified by the court and that broad movement restraints invite constitutional scrutiny.


In re Pedro Q., 209 Cal. App. 3d 1368, 257 Cal. Rptr. 821 (Ct. App. 1989)