WPC;@ 1IaTiP: v_&f;CYPlǓٛu LYT4aj-Z#V勓LHۺtD+/fHD:J @ӷd@SN␳<Ʋlc@Lz*0/L33SHzBoq"cgZj핱xu890eyM/,ôb>7Bi"w~ǂ('4ؔPnjrbfoPF U[+@Fґ beŊ4fnʉ!ΔʩѰs\ N 0U 0 0 0 0X 0 0 0q 0 0 0~ 0O 0 0 0V 0 0 0' 0 0v 0D 0  0 0\ 0 0 0$ 0 0` 0! 0>! 0" 0# 0# 0$ 0% 0& 0|' 06( 02) 0:) 0:6* 0Yp* 0_* 0 (+ 02, 0- B*/ D// D+0 0<>0 0z0 D/2 02 06}3 03 0:4 0^4 0<S5 1e5U65U>*6U*h6 1u6 727 0c97 (7J7 $8G28 (y8[8 .8B*9 .l9F9 09: .:p::;:; $>B<> 0~>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "?O?HP LaserJet 2200 Series PCL 60)a0 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,$k> h>:i+003|xU\  `&Times New RomanW*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` SearchTerm(22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7>(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?L%2A`Arial?  SK\  `&Times New RomanS7?(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d=)1dxd'dxd<:Default Para<:zTop of For7B(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?L%2A`Arial?  SK\  `&Times New RomanS7?(X75+ ` hp x 5  =)2dxd0KS.SampleKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKSK\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Mi)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  Q10 Cal.4th 11142 @_Peoplev.Carbajal(1995)10Cal.4th1114,1121S5 Cal.4th 2282 =_Peoplev.Welch(1993)5Cal.4th228,234-237U2001 WL 13569911 Q_InreJustinS.(2001)__Cal.App.4th__[Nov.6,2001WL1356991W72 Cal.App.4th 1682 8_InreJosueS.(1999)72Cal.App.4th168Y58 Cal.App.4th 9632 <_InreAbdirahamS.(1997)58Cal.App.4th963[13 Cal.App.4th 10492 _Peoplev._Hackler_Ԁ(1993)13_Cal.App_.4th1049,1058]221 Cal.App.3d 9372 f_Peoplev.Bauer( 1989)221_Cal.App_.3d937,942 Tyrell subd WelfLaylahIn InHacklerBabak t]oReinertsonGraynard I]tSeligmanPenoliCarbajalAbdirahmanCromerJosueAbdirahamStricklandoverbroad a]llnonappealableCrips i]nWardlowDerick D.G. n]otO'NeilJungersunpub opn KacyMoret Jimit]hatTerezTupperHarrissonONeila15 Cal.3d 4812 8_Peoplev.Lent(1975)15Cal.3d481,486c229 Cal.App.3d 14962 _Inre_Laylah_ԀK.(1991)229_Cal.App_.3d1496,1500,disapprovedonothergroundsin_In_ԀreSade  C.(1996)13Cal.4th952,962,fn.2,983,fn.13466 U.S. 6681 E_Stricklandv.Washington(1984)466U.S.668,687-694 !ЁXXUSUS.,  _    8NXXdd8̀ XЁPROBATIONCONDITIONS:ADULTANDJUVENILES#Ё X˴#   Whattypesofconditionsareunreasonableandunconstitutional?  0 XNXЁKimberlyFitzgerald &  (RevisedandUpdated   byRichardBraucher,KathrynSeligman,andJeremyPrice)#ЁXXN#XNXЁ   January2011 r   #ЁXXNY# @*  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  \*%& 730HarrisonStreet,Suite201 Z+&' SanFrancisco,CA94107 Z,'( (415)4953119 Z-()     8NXXdXXd8I.0  OVERVIEWOFTHEGENERALLAWONPROBATIONCONDITIONS0@>"(#(# (#(#     Whetherdiscussingtheimpositionofprobationconditionsforadultsorminors,thebasic  analysisbeginswithPeoplev.Lent(1975)15Cal.3d481,forboth.Asnotedbelow,  however,thejuvenilecourtmustconsidertheminorsentiresocialhistory(notjustthe  circumstancessurroundingtheoffense(s))andthejuvenilecourtsobligationto   rehabilitatetheminor(i.e.,aminorcannotrefuseprobation,unlikeanadult,sincethe   courtmustconsiderthebestwaytorehabilitatetheminor).(SeeInreTyrellJ.(1994)8   Cal.4th68,8183.)Thesedifferences,amongothers,effectivelyprovidesthejuvenile   courtwithbroaderdiscretioninimposingprobationconditions.     ЁЁInadultcriminalcases, #Ё Ё'#KЁЁtrialcourtshavebroaddiscretiontoimpose% # #ЁKЁ#%#KЁЁconditionsof   #ЁKЁ #KЁЁprobationtofosterrehabilitationandreformationofthedefendant,toprotectthepublic   andthevictim,andtoensurethatjusticeisdone.(Pen.Code,#ЁKЁx #KЁЁ#ЁKЁt #KЁЁ1203.1,subd.(j);#ЁKЁ #KЁЁBrown   v.SuperiorCourt(2002)101Cal.App.4th313,319;#ЁKЁ #KЁЁPeoplev.Miller#ЁKЁ #KЁЁԀ(1989)208   Cal.App.3d1311,1314.)Likewise,thejuvenilecourtindelinquencymatterscan#ЁKЁ #   imposeandrequireanyandallreasonableconditionsthatitmaydeterminefittingand  propertotheendthatjusticemaybedoneandthereformationandrehabilitationofthe  wardenhanced.(Welf.&Inst.Code,730.) ЁЁԀWhethertheconditionsarereasonableis  determinedunderthethreepartLenttest.(#Ё Ё # ЁЁPeoplev.Lent,supra,#Ё Ё# ЁЁԀ15Cal.3dat486#Ё Ё# ЁЁ.)  AccordingtoPeoplev.Lent,supra,aconditionisunreasonableifit#Ё Ё># ЁЁ (1)hasno  relationshiptothecrimeofwhichtheoffenderwasconvicted,(2)relatestoconduct  whichisnotinitselfcriminal,and(3)requiresorforbidsconductwhichisnotreasonably  relatedtofuturecriminality.[Citationomitted.]#Ё Ё#B.` hp x (#XB ЁЁԀ(#Ё Ё# ЁЁPeoplev.Lent,supra,#Ё Ё# ЁЁԀ15Cal.3dat  486#Ё Ё?# `  ЁЁ;seealso#Ё Ё# ЁЁInreLaylah#Ё Ё# ЁЁԀ#Ё ЁT# ЁЁK#Ё Ё# ЁЁ.(1991)229Cal.App.3d1496,1500,disapprovedonother  groundsin#Ё Ё# ЁЁInreSadeC#Ё Ё}# ЁЁ.(1996)13Cal.4th952#Ё Ё# b  ЁЁ.)  InadditiontoconsideringwhetheraprobationconditionisreasonableunderLent,a  #Ё Ё4# ЁЁprobationconditionthatinfringesuponapersonsconstitutionalrightsissubjectedto   additionalscrutiny.Suchacondition#Ё Ё# ЁЁmustbenarrowlydrawn,specificallytailoredto ! meettheprobationersindividualneeds,andreasonablyrelatedtothecompellingstate " interestinreformationandrehabilitation.(Peoplev.Hackler(1993)13Cal.App.4th # 1049,1058;Peoplev.Bauer(1989)211Cal.App.3d937,942;#Ё Ё# ЁЁInreBabakS.(1993)18 $  Cal.App.4th1077,1084;#Ё Ё# ЁЁԀ#Ё Ё# ЁЁPeoplev.Garcia#Ё ЁV# ЁЁ(1993)19Cal.App.4th97,102103#Ё Ё# Z  \  ЁЁ.) % ! Moreover, [t]otheextentitisoverbroaditisnotreasonablyrelatedtoacompellingstate &!" interestinreformationandrehabilitationandisan#Ё Ё)# ЁЁunconstitutionalrestrictiononthe '"# exerciseoffundamentalconstitutionalrights.(B.` hp x (#XB#Ё Ё-# ЁЁPeoplev.Garcia,supra,19Cal.App.4th (#$ at102#Ё Ё# ЁЁ;Peoplev.Hackler,supra,#Ё Ё# ЁЁ13Cal.App.4that1058#Ё Ё # ЁЁ.) )$% #Ё Ёd#Aprobationconditionwhichisoverlygeneralorvagueviolatesaprobationersdue +&' processrighttofairandadequatenotice.(SeeSheenaK.(2007)40Cal.4th875,890[the  principleunderlyingavaguenesschallengeisthedueprocessconceptoffairwarning];  Peoplev.Lopez(1998)66Cal.App.4th615,629630.) Itisanessentialcomponentof  dueprocessthatindividualsbegivenfairnoticeofthoseactswhichmayleadtoalossof  liberty.Thisistruewhetherthelossoflibertyarisesfromacriminalconvictionorthe  revocationofprobation.(InreRobertM. (1985)163Cal.App.3d812,816.)A   probationcondition mustbesufficientlyprecisefortheprobationertoknowwhatis   requiredofhim[orforbidden],andforthecourttodeterminewhethertheconditionhas   beenviolated.(SeeSheenaK.,supra,at890[citingPeoplev.Reinertson(1986)178   Cal.App.3d320,324325].)Aprobationerof commonintelligenceshouldnothaveto    guessastowhatconductisprohibitedbythecondition,whenaviolationcouldleadto   morerestrictiveplacement.(SeeSheenaK.,supra,at890.)   Avagueprobationconditionpresentstwodangers.First,becausetheprobationercannot   ascertainwhatconductisforbidden,hemayunwittinglyviolateprobation.(SeeLopez,  supra,66Cal.App.4that630.)Second,becausethecourtfailedtoprovidean explicit  standardtothosechargedwithmonitoringtheprobationerscompliance,policeand  probationofficersmustspeculateastowhatbehaviorisbarred.Thiscreatesariskofad  hoc arbitraryanddiscriminatory_enforcement._Ԁ(SeeGraynardv.CityofRockford  (1972)408U.S.104,108109;SheenaK.,supra.,at890.)  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasheldthat,inanadultcase,theruleofPeoplev.Harvey  (1979)25Cal.3d754appliestoimpositionofprobationconditions: whenunderaplea  agreementadefendantpleadsguiltytooneormorechargesinexchangefordismissalof  oneormorecharges,thetrialcourtcannot,inplacingthedefendantonprobation,impose  conditionsthatarebasedsolelyonthedismissedchargeorchargesunlessthedefendant  agreedtothemorunlessthereisatransactionalrelationshipbetweenthechargeor  chargestowhichthedefendantpledandthefactsofthedismissedchargeorcharges.  (Peoplev.Martin(Dec.30,2010)򀀀Cal.4th򀀀,2010WL5393660.)    ЁЁI#Ё Ё *#nsettingaminorsprobationconditions,thejuvenilecourtmustconsidernotonlythe " circumstancesofthecrime,butalsotheminorsentiresocialhistory.(InreTyrellJ., # supra,8Cal.4that82;InreFrankieJ.(1998)198Cal.App.3d1149,1153;InreToddL. $  (1980)113Cal.App.3d14,20.)Thisadditionalfactor,alongwiththejuvenilecourts %!! dutytoconsiderrehabilitation,essentiallyprovidesthejuvenilecourtwithmoreleewayin &"" orderingprobationconditions."Aconditionofprobationwhichisimpermissibleforan '## adultcriminaldefendantisnotnecessarilyunreasonableforajuvenilereceivingguidance ($$ andsupervisionfromthejuvenilecourt."(InreFrankV.(1991)233Cal.App.3d1232, )%% 1242,citingInreToddL.(1980)113Cal.App.3d14,19;InreAntonioR.(2000)78 *&& Cal.App.4th937,941;InreAntonioC.(2000)83Cal.App.4th1029,1033.) +'' ЇWhichgoverns:thewrittenorderorthecourtsoralpronouncement?Itdepends.Recital  incourtofallconditionsisunnecessarysolongasthedefendantknowswhattheyare.If  thecourtsoralpronouncementisanabbreviatedreferencetoaconditiondetailedonthe  probationorder,thewrittenordergoverns.(Peoplev.Thrash(1978)80Cal.App.3d898,  901902.)However,whenthereisadiscrepancybetweentheminuteorderandtheoral  pronouncementofconditions,theoralpronouncementcontrols.(Peoplev.Gabriel   (2010)189Cal.App.4th1070,1073.)However,iftheclerkstranscriptsimplyclarifiesa   pointthatthereporterstranscriptleftambiguous,theminuteordercorrectlyrecitesthe   courtsruling.(InreByronB.(2004)119Cal.App.4th1013,1018.)   Onelastthing,althoughitmaybeobvious,itbearsrestatingthatadefendantsultimate   acceptanceoftheconditionsofprobationdoesnotprecludehimfromchallengingthem   onappeal: [I]tisestablishedthatifadefendantacceptsprobation,hemayseekrelief   fromtherestraintofanallegedlyinvalidconditionofprobationonappealfromtheorder   grantingprobation.(Peoplev.Penoli(1996)46Cal.App.4th298,302,fn.2.)    A.0 ` StandardofReviewonAppeal` (#` (# 0  A ЁЁppellatereviewofachallengedprobationconditionthatisunreasonableunder  Lentconsiderswhetherthelowercourtabuseditsdiscretion.(#Ё Ё:5#Peoplev.Carbajal  (1995)10Cal.4th1114,1121; P  ЁЁԀInreAbdirahmanS.(1997)58Cal.App.4th963,  969#Ё Ё6# ЁЁ.)#Ё Ё7#Ԁ  ЁЁAlthough#Ё Ё]7# ЁЁԀthelowercourtenjoysbroaddiscretioninformulatingconditions  ofprobation,thatdiscretionisnotlimitless.(InreTyrellJ.,supra,8Cal.4that81;  InreBabakS.,supra,18Cal.App.4that1084;#Ё Ё7# ЁЁPeoplev.Carbajal,supra,10  Cal.4that1121.)#Ё Ё8# ЁЁԀArguably,aprobationconditionthatpresentsaconstitutional  issuethatisapurequestionoflawshouldberevieweddenovo.(SeePeoplev.  Cromer(2000)24Cal.4th889,899900.)#Ё Ё{9# ЁЁ(#(#   B.0 ` NecessityofObjectionbyTrialCounselBelow!` (#` (# 0  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasheldthat,inadultcriminalcases,trialcounsels # failuretoobjecttoaprobationconditiononLentgroundsatthetimeofsentencing $  waivesanychallengetothatconditiononappeal.(#Ё Ё:# ЁЁPeoplev.Welch#Ё Ё<# ЁЁԀ(1993)5 % ! Cal.4th228,234237#Ё Ё<# R  ЁЁ.)#Ё Ёl=# ЁЁAlthought#Ё Ё=# ЁЁheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasnotyet &!" specificallydecidedwhetherthiscontemporaneousobjectionrulesetforthin '"# Peoplev.Welch,supra,appliesinjuveniledelinquencycases,severalappellate (#$ courtshavedeclaredthatitdoes.(See#Ё Ё=# ЁЁInreJustinS.(2001)#Ё Ёu?# ЁЁ93Cal.App.4th811, )$% 814815[SecondDistrict,DivisionFour#Ё Ё?# T  ЁЁ]#Ё Ёu@# ЁЁ;#Ё Ё@# ЁЁInreJosueS#Ё Ё@# ЁЁ.(1999)72Cal.App.4th *%& 168,173#Ё ЁQA# V  ЁЁԀ[SecondDistrict,DivisionFive]#Ё ЁA# ЁЁ;#Ё Ё7B# ЁЁInreAbdiraham_S#Ё Ё~B# ЁЁ.,___Ԁ58Cal.App.4th +&' 963,970#Ё ЁB# X  ЁЁԀ[FourthDistrict,DivisionOne]#Ё ЁC# ЁЁ.)Absentanobjection,adultcaseswill  requireraisingthisissueundertheumbrellaofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel  andjuvenilecaseswillmostlikelyrequirethisasanalternativeargumentaswell.  (See#Ё ЁC# ЁЁStricklandv.Washington#Ё ЁXE# ЁЁԀ(1984)466U.S.668,687694#Ё ЁE#   ЁЁ;#Ё Ё!F# ЁЁInreAvena#Ё ЁhF# ЁЁԀ(1996)  12Cal.4th694,721.)#Ё ЁF#(#(#  ЁЁ0  Withrespecttounconstitutionalprobationconditions,theCaliforniaSupreme   Courthasheldthatachallengetoaprobationconditionasfaciallyvagueand   overbroadpresentsanassertederrorthatisapurequestionoflaw,requiringno   objectioninthetrialcourt.(#Ё ЁKG#SheenaK.,supra,40Cal.4that889.) (#(# 0  Notethatphrasessuchas allpreviousOrdersoftheCourtnotinconsistentwith   todaysOrdersremaininfullforceandeffect, [a]llpriorordersnotinconflict   remainineffect,and [a]llpriorordersnotinconflictwithtodaysordersto   remaininfullforceandeffectinajuvenilecourtdispositionorderdonotrevivea  previousorderthathasbecomefinalandisnonappealable.(InreShaunR.(2010)  188Cal.App.4th1129,1133.)Nodoubtthisruleappliestoadultcriminalcases.  (SeePeoplev.Ramirez(2008)159Cal.App.4th1412,1421[defendantwhoelects  nottoappealanordergrantingormodifyingprobationcannotraiseclaimsoferror  withrespecttothegrantormodificationofprobationinalaterappealfroma  judgmentfollowingrevocationofprobation].)(#(#    ЁЁ  C.0 ` CategoriesofProbationConditions` (#` (#     ` 1.0 GangConditions #Ё ЁaM# ЁЁԀ#Ё ЁFN# ЁЁ (# (# #Ё ЁN#   `     h   0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreH.C.(2009)175Cal.App.4th1067  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Twoconditionschallengedonappealasfaciallyvagueand  overbroad.(Note:Noforfeitureofissueforfailuretoobjectper   SheenaK.) Thattheminornotassociatewithanyknown ! probationer,parolee,organgmemberisvaguebecausepassive " form knowndoesnotspecifyasubject.Sincethedefectwas #  obvious,thecourtmodifiedconditionasfollows: YouH.C.will $  notassociatewithanypersonknowntoyoutobeonprobation,on % ! paroleoramemberofacriminalstreetgang.Secondcondition, &!" stating, Thattheminornotfrequentanyareasofgangrelated '"# activityandnotparticipateinanygangactivitywas (#$ unconstitutionallyvaguerequiringremandtodefineobscureverb )$%  frequentandphrase areasofgangrelatedactivity,whichcould *%& includeanentiretown.+&' (# (# Ї0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreShaunR.(2010)188Cal.App.4th1129  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Allpriorordersnotinconflictremainineffectnot  unconstitutionallyvagueandrequiringthecourttospecifywherethe  conflictsbetweenthetermsofanewdispositionorderandaprevious  orderplacestoogreataburdenonthetrialcourt. (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreVictorL.(2010)182Cal.App.4th902   (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionofprobationorderingtheminortostayawayfrom areas   knownby[him]forgang-relatedactivityisimpermissiblyvaguein   thatitdoesnotprovidenoticeofwhatareastheminormaynot    frequentorwhattypesofactivitieshemustshun.  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Leon(2010)181Cal.App.4th943   (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Gangconditionstating Noinsignia,tattoos,emblem,button,badge,   cap,hat,scarf,bandana,jacket,orotherarticleofclothingwhichis   evidenceofaffiliationwithormembershipinagangis  unconstitutionallyvaguebecauseitlacksanexplicitknowledge  requirement,renderingdefendantvulnerabletocriminalpunishment  forpossessingparaphernaliathathedidnotknowwasassociated  withgangs.However,noneedtoexpresslyinsertthenameof  defendantsparticulargangintotheprobationconditiontosaveit  frombeingoverbroad. (# (#    ` 0 InreJustinS.(2001)93Cal.App.4th811  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Probationconditionprohibitedassociationwithgangmembers  withoutrestrictingtheprohibitiontoknowngangmembers.  Conditionheldunconstitutionallyoverbroad,butremedywasto  modifytheconditiontopersonsknowntotheprobationertobe  associatedwithagang.  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Lopez(1998)66Cal.App.4th615" (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# GangconditionsupheldunderLentasreasonablyrelatedto # preventingfuturecriminality,butmodifiedtoavoidconstitutional $  defects.Thedefendantwasanadmittedgangmemberandtherewas % ! aninferencethattheoffensewasgangrelated.&!" (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionpreventedthedefendantfromwearing/displayinggang '"# emblems,colors,etc.Conditionunconstitutionalinthatitwas (#$ overbroad,butmodifiedtopreventthedefendantfromdisplaying )$% symbolsknownbyhimtohaveagangconnotation.*%& (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionrestrictedthedefendantfromassociatingwithgang +&' members.Thisconditionwasalsodeemedunconstitutionally  overbroadandmodifiedtorequireaknowledgeelement  preventingassociationwithknowngangmembers. (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionprohibitingthedefendantfromassociatingwithgang  membersorwearinggangattirewithoutdefiningthetermgangwas  alsounconstitutionallyvagueandviolateddueprocess.(U.S.Const.,   14thAmend.;Cal.Const.,art.I,7(a).)Conditionmodifiedto   insertthegangdefinitionassetforthinPenalCodesection186.22,   subdivisions(e)(f).  (# (#  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#InreLaylahK.(1991)229Cal.App.3d1496   (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Variousgangconditionsimposedtheminorwasnottobepresent   inknowngatheringareasoftheCripsgang,nottoassociatewith   Cripsgangmembers,nottowearCripsgangcolors,nottopossess   weapons,andnottoattendcourtproceedingsunrelatedtotheminor.   Allconditionsweredeemedconstitutionalastheywerenarrowly  tailoredandalsosatisfiedtheLenttestinthattheconditionswere  likelytopreventtheminorfromfuturecriminalityeventhoughthe  minorwasnotagangmember.Theminorssocialhistoryindicated  thatshewasarunaway,outofherparentscontrol,andoftentruant  fromschool.SheadmittedthatsheassociatedwithCripsgang  members,althoughshewasnotamemberherself.Atleastone  personinvolvedinthecommissionoftheoffensewasaCripsgang  member,thevictimattackedwaswearingarivalgangcolor,andthe  offensewasarguablygangrelated.Thus,thegangconditionswere  topreventtheminorfromtakingthenextstepinjoiningtheCrips. (# (#    ` 2.0 SearchConditions (# (#    `  a.  Upheldbasedonprior/currentdrugoralcoholuse  ! 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# InreLaylahK.(1991)229Cal.App.3d1496 #(#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#Searchconditionimposedandupheldasnotimpermissibly $  infringingupontheminorsFourthAmendmentrightssinceit % ! wasspecificallytailoredtoachieverehabilitationofthe &!" probationer.Theminoradmittedalcoholandmarijuanause. '"# Thecourtnotedthat [i]nalcoholanddrugrelatedmatters, (#$ searchconditionsarereasonable.)$%(#(#  +&' 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# Peoplev.Wardlow(1991)227Cal.App.3d360 (#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#Impositionofsearchconditionupheldasitwasreasonably  relatedtothedefendantsoffenseandtopreventfuture  criminality.Thedefendantwasundertheinfluenceofdrugs  andalcoholduringthecommissionoftheoffensesandhis  pasthistoryindicatedthathehadaserioussubstanceabuse   problem. (#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# InreToddL.(1980)113Cal.App.3d14 (#(#  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#Searchconditionvalidanddeemedreasonablyrelatedtothe    minorscurrentoffenseandtopreventfuturecriminality.The   minorscurrentoffensewasforpettytheftandwithinthepast   fewweekshehadbeenarrestedtwicefordrugrelated   offenses.Therewasalsoevidenceofpastdruguseand   possibledrugdealing. (#(#    `  b.  Upheldbasedondrug/alcoholuse&weaponpossession   0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# Peoplev.Bauer(1989)211Cal.App.3d937 (#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#Searchconditionupheldasreasonablyrelatedtothefactsof  thedefendantscurrentoffenseandtohisfuturecriminality.  Therewasevidencethatdefendanthadusedafirearmduring  thecommissionofhiscrimes,hehadbeendrinkingonthe  nighthecommittedtheseoffenses,theincidentwaspossibly  drugrelated,anddefendanthaduseddrugsinthepast.(#(#    `  c.0  Upheldbasedonweaponpossession (#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# InreMichaelD.(1989)214Cal.App.3d1610  (#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#Searchconditionupheld.Theminorwaschargedwithassault ! withadeadlyweapon(althoughsustainedasamisdemeanor " battery),admittedthathewasagangmember,andhad # experimentedwithdrugsandusedalcohol(althoughthe $  drug/alcoholusewasnotspecificallyarticulatedasabasisfor % ! thesearch).&!"(#(#    `  d.0  Invalidsearchconditions (#$(#(#    `     DerickB.v.SuperiorCourt(2009)180Cal.App.4th295  *%& 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#CourthasnoauthoritytoimposeaFourthAmendmentwaiver +&' asaconditionofinformalsupervisionunderWelfareand  InstitutionsCodesections654and654.2.(#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# 0 (# (#InreMartinez(1978)86Cal.App.3d577 (#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#SearchconditionnotupheldunderthetestsetforthinPeople  v.Lent,supra.Thedefendantwaspartofacrowdofpeople   yellingandthrowingbottles/cansatpolice.Thedefendant   wasconvictedofbatteryonapoliceofficer.Theappellate   courtinvalidatedthesearchconditionbecause_the___Ԁoffensedid   notinvolveaconcealedweaponandnothinginthe    defendantspriorhistoryindicatedapropensitytopossess   concealedweaponsinthefuture.Thus,no factualnexus   existedbetweenthecrime,defendantsmanifested   propensities,andthesearchcondition. (#(#    ` 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# Peoplev.Keller(1978)76Cal.App.3d827 (#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#Searchconditiondeemedinvalid.Thedefendantwas  convictedofpettytheftofa49centpenwithnoevidencethe  theftwasdrugrelated(althoughthedefendantdidhavea  priorhistoryofdrugabuse).Theconditionwasnot  reasonablyrelatedtotheunderlyingoffense,norwasitlikely  topreventfuturecriminality.    (#(#    ` 3.0 RestrictionsonTravel,Association,andStayAwayOrders  (# (#  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# AlexO.v.SuperiorCourt(2009)174Cal.App.4th1176  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Theminor,aUnitedStatescitizenwholivedwithhismotherin  Mexico,admittedsmugglingmarijuanaintotheUnitedStates. (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Thejuvenilecourtimposedaconditionpreventingtheminorfrom   enteringtheUnitedStatesexcepttoattendschool,meetwithhis ! probationofficer,completethetermsofhisprobation,seekor " maintainemployment,visithisfatherandfamilymembers.The # courtheldthattheconditionwasoverbroadandnotreasonably $  relatedtothejuvenilesunderlyingsmugglingoffense.Similarly,the % ! limitsonthepurposesforwhichtheminorcouldentertheUnited &!" States,whichtakentogetherwiththejuvenileslivingarrangements, '"# effectivelybanishedthejuvenilefromtheUnitedStates.However, (#$ becauseanybordercrossingbythejuvenilewascloselyrelatedtohis )$% underlyingsmugglingoffense,thecourtcouldreasonablyrequire *%& thatthejuvenilegivehisprobationofficernoticeofwhenheentered +&' theUnitedStatessothattheprobationofficercouldmakesurethe  juveniledidnotcommitfurthersmugglingoffenses. (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreVictorL.(2010)182Cal.App.4th902  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionofprobationorderingtheminortostayawayfrom areas  knownby[him]forgang-relatedactivityisimpermissiblyvaguein   thatitdoesnotprovidenoticeofwhatareastheminormaynot   frequentorwhattypesofactivitieshemustshun.  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreD.G.(2010)187Cal.App.4th47    (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Minorwasfoundtohavecommittedaburglaryofahomeand   receivingstolenpropertyandhad_had_Ԁpriorsustainedpetitionsfor   autoburglaryandsalesofmarijuana.Thejuvenilecourtimposedas   aconditionofprobation: Donotbeonanycampusorwithin150   feetofanycampusotherthantheschoolinwhichyouarecurrently   enrolled.Thecourtheldthattheconditionwasunreasonableunder  Lent,because(1)therewasnorelationshipbetweenschoolor  studentsandtheminorscurrentorpastcrimes,asnonewere  committedonschoolgroundsandnoneinvolvedschoolage  children;(2)theconditiondidnotrelatetoconductthatisitself  criminal(i.e.,itisnotillegaltopasswithin150feetofschool  grounds);and(3)restrictionwasnotrelatedtotheminorspossible  futurecriminality,becausetherewasnothinginhispastorcurrent  offensesorhispersonalhistorythatdemonstratedapredispositionto  commitcrimesnearschoolgroundsoruponstudentsandwould  thereforeservenorehabilitativefunction. (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#  (# (#     `  Peoplev.Gabriel(2010)189Cal.App.4th1070  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Conditionrequiringdefendantto [n]otassociatewithany   individualsyouknoworsuspecttobegangmembers,drugsusers,or ! onanyformofprobationorparolesupervisionwas " unconstitutionallyvague.Theword suspect,lackingspecificity, # failedtoprovidedefendantwithadequatenotice.Thecourtnoted $  thecondition,aswritten,isinsufficientlypreciseforacourtto % ! determinewhetheraviolationhasoccurred.Thecourtmodifiedthe &!" conditiontodeletetheword suspect.'"# (# (#  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#InreH.C.(2009)175Cal.App.4th1067 )$% (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionstating [t]hattheminornotassociatewithanyknown *%& probationer,parolee,organgmemberisvaguebecausepassive +&' form knowndoesnotspecifyasubject.Sincethedefectwas   obvious,thecourtmodifiedconditionasfollows: YouH.C.will  notassociatewithanypersonknowntoyoutobeonprobation,on  paroleoramemberofacriminalstreetgang.Secondcondition,  stating, Thattheminornotfrequentanyareasofgangrelated  activityandnotparticipateinanygangactivitywas   unconstitutionallyvaguerequiringremandtodefineobscureverb    frequentandphrase areasofgangrelatedactivity,whichcould   includeanentiretown.  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.O'Neil(2008)165Cal.App.4th1351   (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#A standardtermofprobationinthecounty,thisconditionstated:    Youshallnotassociatesocially,norbepresentatanytime,atany   place,publicorprivate,withanyperson,asdesignatedbyyour   probationofficer.Courtheldtheconditionisoverbroadandpermits   anunconstitutionalinfringementondefendantsrightofassociation.  First,itisnotlimitedtothosedefendantknowsaresodesignated.  Second,thecourtsorderdoesnotidentifytheclassofpersonswith  whomdefendantmaynotassociatenordoesitprovideanyguideline  astothosewithwhomtheprobationdepartmentmayforbid  association.Sincetheconditioncontainsnosuchstandardbywhich  theprobationdepartmentistobeguided,theconditionistoobroad.0@"notinv0@"(#(#0@"` (#` (# (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreSheenaK.(2007)40Cal.4th875  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Probationconditionforbiddingminorsassociationwith anyone  disapprovedofbyprobationisunconstitutionallyvagueand  overbroad. (# (#    `  Peoplev.Smith(2007)152Cal.App.4th1245    0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionimposedupondefendant,aspartofablanketrestrictionon ! allpersonsconvictedofsexoffense,banninghimfromleavingthe " countyforanypurpose,wasconstitutionallyinfirm,astoorestrictive # ofhisrighttoassociationandtravelandnotnarrowlytailored.$  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Turner(2007)155Cal.App.4th1432 &!" (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionrequiringdefendantto [n]otassociatewithpersonsunder '"# theageof18unlessaccompaniedbyanunrelatedresponsibleadult (#$ isvagueunderSheenaK.,becauseapersonmayreasonablynot )$% knowwhetherheorsheisassociatingwithsomeoneundertheageof *%& 18.Courtmodifiedtheconditiontostate, Notassociatewith +&' personsheknowsorreasonablyshouldknowtobeundertheageof  18unlessaccompaniedbyaresponsibleadultunrelatedto  defendant (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Jungers(2005)127Cal.App.4th698  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionforbiddingdefendantfrominitiatingcontactwithhiswife   wasdeclaredreasonableunderLentbecauseitrestrictsconductnot   itselfcriminal,isdirectlyrelatedtohisdomesticviolenceoffense   andreasonablyrelatedtofuturecriminality.Itwasalso   constitutional.Althoughthedefendantsexpectationsoffree    associationandmaritalprivacywerenecessarilyreduced,itwasnot   abanonassociationormaritalprivacy,butanarrowlytailored   conditionconsistentwithdefendantsrehabilitationandthesafetyof   thevictim,supportingthestatescompellinginterestinpreventing   furtherincidentsofviolence,threatsandharassment.  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreByronB.(2004)119Cal.App.4th1013 (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Conditionthattheminor [n]othavedirectorindirectcontactwith  anyoneknowntobedisapprovedbyparent(s)/guardian(s)/probation  officer,staffnotunconstitutionallyunreasonable,vague,or  overbroad. (# (#    `  InreDwayneT.(Nov.22,2002,A097770[unpub.opn.])   0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Theconditionorderingappellanttostayawayfrom61stAvenue  entirelywasunconstitutionalinthatitunnecessarilyrestrictedhis  righttotravelandtheconditionwasvagueandoverbroad.Thecourt  modifiedtheconditiontorestricttheminorfromenteringthe800  blockof61ststreetthelocationwherethecrimeoccurred.  Anotherconditionpreventedtheminorfromtravelingoutsideof   AlamedaCountywithoutfirstseekingpermission.Thecourtheld ! theconditioninvalidunderLentbecausetherewasnonexusor " connectionbetweenareasoutsideofAlamedaCountyandthe # minorsunderlyingcrimeorhisfuturecriminalitysincetheminor $  livedinandcommittedthecrimeinAlamedaCounty.% ! (# (#    ` 0  InreAntonioR.(2000)78Cal.App.4th937 '"# (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#ConditionpreventedtheminorfromenteringLosAngelesCounty (#$ unlessaccompaniedbyaparentorwiththepriorpermissionofthe )$% probationofficer.Conditionupheldanddeemednotan *%& unconstitutionalrestrictionontheminorsrighttotravel/association, +&' inpartbecausetheminorwasnotcompletelybanishedfromthearea  andhelivedinanothercounty.Theminorwasalsopartofagang  thatresidedinLosAngelesCountyandhiscurrentandpastoffenses  werearguablyaresultofthatgangassociation. (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreKacyS.(1998)68Cal.App.4th704   (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionrequiredtheprobationofficertopreapproveallofthe   personswithwhomtheminorassociated.Conditionwasdeemed   overbroadsincetheminorsoffenseconsistedofchallenginga   persontoapublicfightandthereforemodifyingtheconditiontostay    awayfromthatparticularpersonwassufficienttoeffectuatethe   courtsorderandtopreventanunconstitutionallyoverbroad   condition.  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Peck(1996)52Cal.App.4th351 (# (#  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Defendant,amemberofachurchthatusedmarijuanaasa  sacrament,wasconvictedoftransportationofmarijuana.Court  upheldacondition,thatdefendantnotassociatewithdrugusers,as  constitutionallyvalidandnotanimpermissibleburdenonhis  freedomofassociation. (# (#    ` 0  ЁЁPeoplev.Garcia#Ё Ё# ЁЁ(1993)19Cal.App.4th97  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#C#Ё Ё#onditionrequiredthedefendanttostayawayfromusers/sellersof  narcotics,felons,andexfelons.Conditioninvalidasitviolatedthe  defendantsfreedomofassociationbecausethetrialcourtdidnot  limittheconditionstopersonsknownbythedefendanttofallwithin  theprohibitedgroup. (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreFrankV.(1991)233Cal.App.3d1232   (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Probationconditionrequiredtheprobationofficerortheminors !  parentstoapproveeachpersonwithwhomtheminorassociatedwith "  becausethecrimeconsistedoftheminorobtainingagunfroman #  unknownpersononthestreet.Conditionupheldsinceamore $  specificconditioncouldnotbedrawn.% !! (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Beach(1983)147Cal.App.3d612 ' ## (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Probationconditionrequiredthedefendanttomoveoutofherhouse ($$ andthecommunity.Shewasconvictedofinvoluntarymanslaughter )%% aftershootingapersoninfrontofherhouse.Conditionstruckas *&& unconstitutionalasitviolatedKЁЁԀherfreedomoftravel,speech, +'' association,assembly,andtothepossessionandenjoymentofher  property.Havingthedefendantmovefromonegeographicalareato  anotherwasofminimalvaluetothepublicwhencomparedwiththe  infringementofherbasicconstitutionalrights.  #ЁKЁ#  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreWhite(1979)97Cal.App.3d141   (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Probationconditionprohibitedthedefendantconvictedof   prostitutiontobebanishedfromcertainareasofFresno.Condition   wasunconstitutionalandoverbroadsincelegitimatereasonsaswell   asnonlegitimateonescouldbecarriedoutwithintherestricted    areas.  (# (#    ` 4.0 DrugTestingConditions/ProhibitiononDrugUse,Medical   MarijuanaUse   (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Moret(2009)180Cal.App.4th839  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#AsharplydividedpanelofDivisionTwooftheFirstDistrictupheld  impositionofprobationconditionsondefendant,convictedof  possessionofaconcealedfirearm,requiringhimtosurrenderhis  medicalmarijuanacardandrefrainfromusingmedicalmarijuana  whileonprobation. (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreKacyS.(1998)68Cal.App.4th704  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Probationconditionrequireddrugtestingorderedpursuantto  WelfareandInstitutionsCodesection729.3.Theconditionwas  upheldeventhoughtheunderlyingoffensewasnotdrug/alcohol  relatedandtherewasnoevidencethattheminorhadanypasthistory  ofdrugoralcoholuse.TwojudgesoftheThirdDistrictheldthat  sincetheurinetestingconditionwasdesignedtodetecttheminors   useofdrugsandalcohol,itwas reasonablyrelatedtofuture ! criminalityasminorsarelegallyprohibitedfromusingthose " substancesand alcoholanddrugsareprecursorsofserious # criminality.However,theonedissentingjusticenotedthatthe $  majoritydisregardedthecardinalrulethateachcasemustbe % ! evaluatedbasedonitsownindividualfacts.&!" (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Peck(1996)52Cal.App.4th351 (#$ (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Defendant,amemberofachurchthatusedmarijuanaasa )$% sacrament,wasconvictedoftransportationofmarijuana.Court *%& upheldaprobationcondition,thatdefendantnotuseorpossessa +&' controlledsubstanceandthathesubmittodrugtesting,asnot  impermissiblyburdeninghisconstitutionalfreeexerciseofreligion,  sincetheserequirementswerereasonablyrelatedtohisoffensesand  tofuturecriminality. (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreJasonJ.(1991)233Cal.App.3d710   (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#  Thejuvenilecourtimposedachemicaltestingconditionanditwas   upheldasbeingamplyjustifiedbytheminorssocialhistoryeven   thoughnodrugs/alcoholwereinvolvedintheoffense.Theminor   wasanadmittedbeerdrinkerandgangmember,butdeniedusing    drugs.Theprobationofficerhadalsonotedthat drugusageis   commonamongstgangmembers.  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreLaylahK.(1991)229Cal.App.3d1496   (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Theappellatecourtapprovedachemicaltestingconditionforthe  minorbasedonthefactthatitwasreasonablyrelatedtopreventing  futurecriminality.Althoughthesustainedoffensewasforpublic  fighting,theminoracknowledgedalcoholandmarijuanause.  Moreover,shewasarunaway,truantfromschool,andbasically  beyondherparentscontrol. (# (#    `     h    `   InreJimiA.(1989)209Cal.App.3d482   0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Drugtestingapprovedforaminoroninhomeprobationwithan  admittedbackgroundofsubstanceabuse eventhoughhisunderlying  batteryoffensewasnotdrugrelated.Thecourtnotedthattheminor  wasalsobeingplacedinthehomewherehehadnoparental  supervisioninthelateeveninghoursandthereforetheconditionwas  reasonablyrelatedtopreventingfuturecriminality. (# (#    ` 5.0 RestrictiononAttendingCourt! (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#InreE.O.(2010)188Cal.App.4th1149# (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Apetitionwassustainedforpossessingaknifeonschoolgrounds. $  Thecourtfoundthefollowingconditionunconstitutionallyvague: % !  [t]hatsaidminornotknowinglycomewithin25feetofa &!" Courthousewhentheminorknowstherearecriminalorjuvenile '"# proceedingsoccurringwhichinvolves[sic]anyonetheminorknows (#$ tobeagangmemberorwheretheminorknowsawitnessorvictim )$% ofgang-relatedactivitywillbepresent,unlesstheminorisapartyin *%& theactionorsubpoenaedasawitnessorneedsaccesstotheareafor +&' alegitimatepurposeorhaspriorpermissionfromhisProbation  Officer. (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Leon(2010)181Cal.App.4th943  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionimposedonanallegedgangmemberstating, Youshall  notappearatanycourtproceedingunlessyoureaparty,yourea   defendantinacriminalaction,subpoenaedasawitness,orwith   permissionofprobation,isconstitutionallyoverbroad.Thecourt   modifiedtheconditionasfollows: Youshallnotbepresentatany   courtproceedingwhereyouknowortheprobationofficerinforms    youthatamemberofacriminalstreetgangispresentorthatthe   proceedingconcernsamemberofacriminalstreetgangunlessyou   areaparty,youareadefendantinacriminalaction,youare   subpoenaedasawitness,oryouhavethepriorpermissionofyour   probationofficer.  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Perez(2009)176Cal.App.4th380 (# (#  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Thecourtstruckdownthefollowingconditionasconstitutionally  overbroad,unnecessarilyrestrictingdefendantsFirstAmendment  accesstothecourts: ThedefendantshallnotattendanyCourt  hearingorbewithin500feetofanyCourtinwhichthedefendantis  neitheradefendantnorundersubpoena.Thedefendantshallinform  theprobationofficerpriortoanyCourtappearance. (# (#     `  InreTerezM.(Nov.24,2003,A102995[unpub.opn.])   0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionprohibitedtheminorfrombeingpresentatanycourt  proceedingunlesshewasaparty,defendant,orsubpoenaedwitness.  ThecourtupheldtheconditionunderLentanddidnotfindit  overbroad.Thecourtstatedthattherestrictiononcourtattendance   preventsthegatheringofgangmemberstointimidatewitnesses. ! Althoughtheminordeniedbeingagangmember,therewassome " evidencethathehadsomecontactwithpersonsinvolvedingangs.# (# (#    ` 6.0 MandatorySchoolAttendance,Employment,Grades&!" (# (#  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Tupper(Dec.23,2010,A125301[unpub.opn.])(#$ (# (#  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Defendantwasconvictedofembezzlementandburglary.Thecourt )$% foundaconditionrequiringdefendantto seekandmaintain *%& meaningfulemploymentvague.L  M  L  M  L  M  L  M  Thecourtremandedthematterfor +&' insertionoftheword paidfor meaningful,observingthata  properpurposeoftheconditionistorequiredefendanttotakesteps  toenablehertopayrestitution. (# (#    `   InreAngelJ.(1992)9Cal.App.4th1096   0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionrequiredthattheminormaintainsatisfactorygrades.The   courtupheldtheconditionfindingthatitsatisfiedLentsincethereis   acorrelationbetweeneducationandthecrimerate.Thecourtalso   heldtheconditionconstitutionalandnotoverbroad/vaguesincethe   conditioncouldbeinterpretedtomeananypassinggradeand    nothingintherecordindicatedthiswasbeyondtheminorsability.  (# (#    `   InreRobertM.(1985)163Cal.App.3d812    0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionrequiringtheminortoobtainsatisfactorygradesand   citizenshipwasstruckbecausetheconditionwasbeyondtheminors   capacitytoachievesatisfactorygrades. (# (#    `   InreGeraldB.(1980)105Cal.App.3d119   0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# SKЁЁAconditionofprobationrequiringschoolattendancehasbeen  upheldunderLentasreasonablyrelatedtotherehabilitationand  preventionoffuturecriminality.However,thecourtcannotimpose  aconditionthatmakesjuvenilehallautomaticbasedonjusta  reportedschoolabsencewithoutamedicalexcuse.#ЁKЁ# (# (#    ` 7.0 Miscellaneous P (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreVictorL.(2010)182Cal.App.4th902 D (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionbanningpossessionofacellphoneisnotunduly E! restrictiveofFirstAmendmentrights.However,condition E" completelybanningInternetuseandaccesswasconstitutionally E# vague,asitconflictedwithotherconditionswhichcontemplated E$ someuseandaccess.Thecourtwastroubledbythecompletebanon E%  accesstoInternet-enabledcomputers.However,thecourthadno E&!  difficultywithaconditionprohibitingpossessionofacomputerwith E'"! Internetaccess,asreasonabletodiscourageandpreventsurreptitious E(#" useincontraventionofthemonitoringrequirements.E)$# (# (#  +;'% 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreLuisF.(2009)177Cal.App.4th176  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Thecourtheldthataconditionmodifiedsoastorequiretheminorto Q  continuetakingmedicationsprescribedfordepressionandsocial Q anxietydisorder,asdirectedbyhisdoctorswasnotvagueor Q overbroad,anddidnotviolateafederaldueprocesslibertyinterestin  Q avoidingcoercedmedicationsorastateconstitutionalrightto  Q privacy. Q (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Turner(2007)155Cal.App.4th1432   (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionrequiringdefendantto [n]otpossessanysexually H  stimulating/orientedmaterialdeemedinappropriatebytheprobation H  officerand/orpatronizeanyplaceswheresuchmaterialor H  entertainmentisavailableisconstitutionallyvagueunderSheena H  K.,because thephrasesexuallystimulating/orientedmaterial H  deemedinappropriatebytheprobationofficerisaninherently H impreciseandsubjectivestandard.Thecourtmodifiedthecondition H tostate, Notpossessanysexuallystimulating/orientedmaterial H havingbeeninformedbytheprobationofficerthatsuchmaterialis H inappropriateand/orpatronizeanyplaceswheresuchmaterialor H entertainmentinthestyleofsaidmaterialisknowntobeavailable.H (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Harrisson(2005)134Cal.App.4th637  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#DefendantsentchildpornographyovertheInternetandpledno ? contesttomisdemeanorpossessionofchildpornography.Afterhis ? conviction,hemadeathreattokilltheprosecutorandasearchofhis ? computerdisclosedhehadbeenviewingadultpornography.The ? courtheldthataconditionofprobationbanningInternetusewas  ? reasonableunderLentandwasnotunconstitutionalunderthe !? circumstances,declaring: whensuchabeneficialtoolisputtoevil "? use,thereisnoconstitutionalimpedimenttorestrictionscalculatedto #? forestallarecurrence.$?  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreChristopherM.(2005)127Cal.App.4th684 '"  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Thechallengedconditionrequired allrecordsrelatingtothe (6$! minorsmedicalandpsychologicaltreatmentbemadeavailableto )6%" thecourtandtheprobationofficerupontheirrequest.Thecourtheld *6&# thattheconditionsimposedonthetroubledyouthwithsubstance +6'$ abuseproblemswerevalidunderLent,didnotviolatehisfederal  constitutionalrighttoprivacyorthepsychotherapist-patient  privilege. (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# Peoplev.Sanchez(2003)105Cal.App.4th1240 V  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionrequiringdefendant,subjecttodiscloseinformationtolaw   enforcementasagangregistrant(Pen.Code,186.32),tolist areas   frequentedwasconstitutionallyvague.Additionalcondition   requiringthedefendanttodisclosehis monikerdidnotviolatehis   FifthAmendmentrighttoremainsilent.  (# (#   D.0 ` DelegationtoProbationOfficer M ` (#` (#    `  Peoplev.O'Neil(2008)165Cal.App.4th1351  A  0  0` (#(#Probationofficersmaynotcreateprobationconditionsnotexpressly B authorizedbythecourt.B` (#` (# 0  0` (#(# InreVictorL.(2010)182Cal.App.4th902 8` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#DistinguishingONeil,supra,acourtmaydictatethebasicpolicyofa 9 conditionofprobation,leavingspecificationofdetailstotheprobation 9 officer.