Error and/or relief
The condition of probation requiring the minor to “report to your probation officer as directed and follow his or her orders” is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and must be modified.
First Holding:
We review constitutional challenges to probation conditions de novo.
Authority:
People v. Appleton (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 717, 723
Second Holding:
A probation condition must be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him, and for the court to determine whether the condition has been violated, if it is to withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness. A probation condition that imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights must closely tailor those limitations to the purpose of the condition to avoid being invalidated as unconstitutionally overbroad.
Authority:
In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890
Third Holding:
Courts may not delegate to probation officers the authority to set probation conditions. A probation officer has wide discretion to enforce court-ordered conditions and to give directives to a probationer, if those directives are reasonably related to previously imposed terms. The condition as drafted does not clearly demarcate the scope of the probation officer’s wide discretion to enforce the court’s conditions. To remove any ambiguity on this point, we will direct that the condition be modified to read “Report to [the probation officer] as directed and follow his/her orders related to the probation conditions imposed by the court.”
Authority:
In re Pedro Q. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1368, 1372-1373
People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902 [While the probation officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions, it is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer.]