Error and/or relief
The minor challenges a probation condition prohibiting use of “illegal drugs or mind altering substances except as prescribed by a physician,” and another condition stating defendant “must not be around persons the minor knows to be users or sellers of illegal drugs or mind altering substances.” The minor contends these conditions are constitutionally vague and overbroad because “mind altering substances” could include legal substances such as caffeine.
We hold the conditions, reasonably read, apply only to illegal drugs and illegal mind-altering substances, and therefore are neither vague nor overbroad. To avoid any ambiguity between the two conditions, however, we modify the second condition to include the same exception for physician-prescribed substances present in the first condition. As modified, we affirm the dispositional order.
First Holding:
To withstand a challenge on the ground of vagueness, 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. The question is not whether a greater degree of precision would be desirable in principle, but whether it is constitutionally compelled. The vagueness doctrine demands no more than a reasonable degree of certainty. When reviewing the language of a probation condition, we assign it the meaning that would appear to a reasonable, objective reader. A probation condition is overbroad if it imposes limitations on a person’s constitutional rights but is not closely tailored to the purpose of the condition.
Authority:
In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890
People v. Hall (2017) 2 Cal.5th 494, 503
People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 382
Second Holding:
Although the minor did not assert his constitutional challenge in the trial court, that challenge presents pure questions of law that can be resolved without reference to the particular sentencing record developed in the trial court and therefore may be raised for the first time on appeal. We review this constitutional challenge de novo.
Authority:
In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889
In re Malik J. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 896, 901
Third Holding:
The minor argues that the conditions are vague as to whether they are limited to illegal mind-altering substances, or apply to legal mind-altering substances as well. Specifically, he contends it is ambiguous whether the term “illegal” modifies “mind altering substances” or simply modifies “drugs,” the term “illegal” directly precedes. We do not think a reasonable, objective reader would parse the conditions to apply the term “illegal” to “drugs” but not to “mind altering substances.”
Authority:
People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 382
Fourth Holding:
Defendant correctly notes condition No. 18 does not contain a prescription exception. Again, because condition No. 18 is limited to illegal substances, a prescription exception strictly speaking is unnecessary, and therefore, read by itself, the language of condition No. 18 is neither vague nor overbroad. In tandem with condition No. 17, however, the presence of a prescription exception in one condition and not the other arguably could create confusion. To remedy any such confusion, we modify condition No. 18 to include a prescription exception. Condition No. 18 is modified to read, “You must not be around persons you know to be users or sellers of illegal drugs or mind altering substances except as prescribed by a physician.”
Authority:
In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 892 [approving reviewing court’s insertion of language to secure the constitutional validity of the probation condition]
In re Luis F. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 176, 192 [tailoring probation condition to remedy vagueness and overbreadth]