## Facts

- A high school principal observed P.O. (age 17) appearing to be under the influence; P.O. admitted using hashish oil that morning.
- A search found 11 Xanax tablets in P.O.’s pockets.
- The prosecution filed a Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 petition; P.O. ultimately admitted an amended allegation of misdemeanor public intoxication.
- At disposition, the juvenile court declared P.O. a ward and placed him on probation.
- Probation conditions included: (1) submission of “electronics including passwords” to warrantless search at any time; (2) attending school or work on time, being of “good behavior,” and “perform[ing] well”; and (3) being of “good citizenship and good conduct.”
- P.O. appealed only the three probation conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether the electronics-search condition is invalid under *People v. Lent* because it is not reasonably related to the offense or future criminality.
2. Whether the electronics-search condition is unconstitutionally overbroad because it authorizes sweeping access to private digital information beyond what supervision and rehabilitation require.
3. Whether the “good behavior/perform well” and “good citizenship/good conduct” conditions are unconstitutionally vague for lack of objective standards and risk of arbitrary enforcement.

## Decision

- The court held the electronics-search condition satisfied *Lent* because it was reasonably related to monitoring compliance with probation and deterring future criminality.
- The court held the electronics-search condition was unconstitutionally overbroad given the breadth and intrusiveness of searching modern electronic devices and associated data.
- The court ordered the electronics-search condition modified to a narrower form tied to legitimate supervisory and rehabilitative purposes.
- The court held the “good behavior/perform well” and “good citizenship/good conduct” conditions were unconstitutionally vague and ordered them stricken.
- The dispositional order was affirmed as modified.

## Legal Principles

- Under *People v. Lent*, a probation condition is invalid only if it (1) has no relationship to the offense, (2) regulates noncriminal conduct, and (3) is not reasonably related to future criminality.
- Probation conditions that implicate constitutional rights must be closely tailored and not substantially broader than necessary to serve supervision and rehabilitation.
- Searches of electronic devices raise heightened privacy concerns because such devices contain extensive personal information; a blanket authorization to search devices and passwords may be overbroad absent meaningful limits.
- Due process requires probation conditions to provide adequate notice of what is required or prohibited and to limit arbitrary enforcement; subjective terms like “good behavior,” “perform well,” and “good citizenship” are impermissibly vague without objective standards.
- When feasible, an overbroad probation condition may be remedied by judicial modification; conditions that are too indeterminate may be stricken rather than rewritten.

## Conclusion

The court permitted electronic-device search supervision in juvenile probation only in a narrowed, purpose-limited form and invalidated generic “good behavior” and “good citizenship” terms as vague, affirming the wardship order after modifying the probation conditions.


In re P.O., 246 Cal. App. 4th 288, 200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 841 (Ct. App. 2016)