WPC> ?29(,: xi?6{9Fw:ɉjW-4{F#QfrETQ>s-45먿18>=A@|FWW3[5 ffom]l{’+vb[9S@ e+sQ[n5 `tD 5O zjXdl凜6 15yQTv@A^T.l7 s9_jM66M)6. "̨_آ~m" ~[LQf{^o{hp- Y6TJ-iW)ԳB^Dߚf V/,,O4ҵ{cLԢiG >~U`-W?U#RlNAQQRٞP)H^ >;>]^C 8{~"W=>F.\N')Uva?M8J eݶqL# UdNc % 0Y ^  w 4 4 C mE UQ>\ 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`0 D/f2 02 06c3 03 0:4 0^4 0<95 1eu5U65U>6U*N6 1ux6 726 0c7 (7j7 $8G88 (8{8 ."9P9 .9: 0:: .B;pp;o;; $O<Bs< 0<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ">o#>HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL,,,,0)a0 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,ԛE0 uZm,:i+003|x U\  `&Times New Roman*+ (_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^466 U.S. 6681<: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$2#  0  .3  0  Q10 Cal.4th 11142 `_Peoplev._Carbajal_Ԁ(1995)10Cal.4th1114,1121S5 Cal.4th 2282 =_Peoplev.Welch(1993)5Cal.4th228,234-237U2001 WL 13569911 q_InreJustinS.(2001)___Cal.App_.4th__[Nov.6,2001WL1356991W72 Cal.App.4th 1682 x_Inre_Josue_ԀS.(1999)72_Cal.App_.4th168Y58 Cal.App.4th 9632 |_Inre_Abdiraham_ԀS.(1997)58_Cal.App_.4th963[13 Cal.App.4th 10492 _Peoplev._Hackler_Ԁ(1993)13_Cal.App_.4th1049,1058]221 Cal.App.3d 9372 f_Peoplev.Bauer( 1989)221_Cal.App_.3d937,942 e__Strickland_Ԁv.Washington(1984)466U.S.668,687-694a15 Cal.3d 4812 8_Peoplev.Lent(1975)15Cal.3d481,486c229 Cal.App.3d 14962 _Inre_Laylah_ԀK.(1991)229_Cal.App_.3d1496,1500,disapprovedonothergroundsin_In_ԀreSade  C.(1996)13Cal.4th952,962,fn.2,983,fn.13466 U.S. 6681 e__Strickland_Ԁv.Washington(1984)466U.S.668,687-694 !=XXUSUS.,  _    8&XXdd8 D+=PROBATIONCONDITIONSIMPOSEDONJUVENILES#= D+#   Whattypesofconditionsareunreasonableandunconstitutional?  0 X&X=January2004 &  KimberlyFitzgerald     #=XX&# @*  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  (#$ 730HarrisonStreet,Suite201 )$% SanFrancisco,CA94107 *%& (415)4953119 +&'   ,'(     8&XXdXXd8I.0  OVERVIEWOFTHEGENERALLAWONPROBATIONCONDITIONS0@>"(#(# (#(#     Whetherdiscussingtheimpositionofprobationconditionsforadultsorminors,thebasic  analysisbeginswithPeoplev.Lent(1975)15Cal.3d481,forboth.Asnotedbelow,  however,thejuvenilecourtmustconsidertheminorsentiresocialhistory(notjustthe  circumstancessurroundingtheoffense(s))andthejuvenilecourtsobligationto   rehabilitatetheminor(i.e.,aminorcannotrefuseprobation,unlikeanadult,sincethe   courtmustconsiderthebestwaytorehabilitatetheminor).(SeeInre_Tyrell_ԀJ.(1994)8   Cal.4th68,8183.)Thesedifferences,amongothers,effectivelyprovidesthejuvenile   courtwithbroaderdiscretioninimposingprobationconditions.Althoughgeneral    principlesofadultprobationconditionsarementionedinthesematerialstohighlightthe   differencesandthematerialsaregenerallyapplicabletoadults,thefocusconcentrateson   juvenilessincethejuvenilecourthasmorediscretion.Asaresult,probationconditions   heldinvalidforjuvenileprobationerswouldlikelybeinvalidforadultprobationers,but   theconverseisnotalwaystrue. t=   Inadultcriminalcases, #= t #K==trialcourtshavebroaddiscretiontoimpose% # #=K= #%#R K==conditionsof  #=K= #K==probationtofosterrehabilitationandreformationofthedefendant,toprotectthepublic  andthevictim,andtoensurethatjusticeisdone.(Pen.Code,#=K= #K==#=K= #K==1203.1,subd.(j);#=K=: #K==Brown  v.SuperiorCourt(2002)101_Cal.App_.4th313,319;#=K= #K==Peoplev.Miller#=K=G #K==Ԁ(1989)208  _Cal.App_.3d1311,1314.)Likewise,thejuvenilecourtindelinquencymatterscan#=K= #   imposeandrequireanyandallreasonableconditionsthatitmaydeterminefittingand  propertotheendthatjusticemaybedoneandthereformationandrehabilitationofthe  wardenhanced.(_Welf_.&Inst.Code,730.) t=ԀWhethertheconditionsarereasonableis  determinedunderthethreepartLenttest.(#= t# t=Peoplev.Lent,supra,#= to# t=Ԁ15Cal.3dat486#= t# t=.)  AccordingtoPeoplev.Lent,supra,aconditionisunreasonableifit#= t# t= (1)hasno  relationshiptothecrimeofwhichtheoffenderwasconvicted,(2)relatestoconduct  whichisnotinitselfcriminal,and(3)requiresorforbidsconductwhichisnotreasonably  relatedtofuturecriminality.[Citationomitted.]#= t#B.` hp x (#XB t=Ԁ(#= t|# t=Peoplev.Lent,supra,#= t# t=Ԁ15Cal.3dat   486#= t# `  t=;seealso#= t# t=Inre_Laylah_#= t# t=Ԁ#= tS# t=K#= t# t=.(1991)229_Cal.App_.3d1496,1500,disapprovedonother ! groundsin#= t# t=_In_ԀreSadeC#= t# t=.(1996)13Cal.4th952#= t #_ b _ t=.) " InadditiontoconsideringwhetheraprobationconditionisreasonableunderLent,a $  #= t# t=probationconditionthatinfringesuponapersonsconstitutionalrightsissubjectedto % ! additionalscrutiny.Suchacondition#= t\# t=mustbenarrowlydrawn,specificallytailoredto &!" meettheprobationersindividualneeds,andreasonablyrelatedtothecompellingstate '"# interestinreformationandrehabilitation.(Peoplev._Hackler_Ԁ(1993)13_Cal.App_.4th (#$ 1049,1058;Peoplev.Bauer(1989)211_Cal.App_.3d937,942;#= t;# t=Inre_Babak_ԀS.(1993)18 )$% _Cal.App_.4th1077,1084;#= tC# t=Ԁ#= t# t=Peoplev.Garcia#= tU# t=(1993)19_Cal.App_.4th97,102103#= t#_ Z __ \ _ t=.) *%& Moreover, [_t]o_Ԁtheextentitis_overbroad_Ԁitisnotreasonablyrelatedtoacompellingstate +&' _interestinreformationandrehabilitationandisan#= t# t=unconstitutionalrestrictiononthe  exerciseoffundamentalconstitutionalrights.(B.` hp x (#XB#= t# t=Peoplev.Garcia,supra,19Cal.App.4th  at102#= t# t=;Peoplev.Hackler,supra,#= tW # t=13Cal.App.4that1058#= t # t=.)  #= t!# t=Finally,i#= tl!#nsettingaminorsprobationconditions,thejuvenilecourtmustconsidernot  onlythecircumstancesofthecrime,butalsotheminorsentiresocialhistory.(Inre   TyrellJ.,supra,8Cal.4that82;InreFrankieJ.(1998)198Cal.App.3d1149,1153;Inre   ToddL.(1980)113Cal.App.3d14,20.)Thisadditionalfactor,alongwiththejuvenile   courtsdutytoconsiderrehabilitation,essentiallyprovidesthejuvenilecourtwithmore   leewayinorderingprobationconditions."Aconditionofprobationwhichis   impermissibleforanadultcriminaldefendantisnotnecessarilyunreasonablefora   juvenilereceivingguidanceandsupervisionfromthejuvenilecourt."(InreFrankV.   (1991)233Cal.App.3d1232,1242,citingInreToddL.(1980)113Cal.App.3d14,19;In   reAntonioR.(2000)78Cal.App.4th937,941;InreAntonioC.(2000)83Cal.App.4th   1029,1033.)    A.0 ` StandardofReviewonAppeal` (#` (# 0  A t=ppellatereviewofachallengedprobationconditionthatisunreasonableunder  Lentconsiderswhetherthelowercourtabuseditsdiscretion.(#= t&#Peoplev.Carbajal  (1995)10Cal.4th1114,1121; P  t=ԀInreAbdirahmanS.(1997)58Cal.App.4th963,  969#= t'# t=.)#= tx(#Ԁ  t=Although#= t(# t=Ԁthelowercourtenjoysbroaddiscretioninformulatingconditions  ofprobation,thatdiscretionisnotlimitless.(InreTyrellJ.,supra,8Cal.4that81;  InreBabakS.,supra,18Cal.App.4that1084;#= t)# t=Peoplev.Carbajal,supra,10  Cal.4that1121.)#= tP*# t=ԀArguably,aprobationconditionthatpresentsaconstitutional  issuethatisapurequestionoflawshouldberevieweddenovo.(SeePeoplev.  Cromer(2000)24Cal.4th889,899900.)#= t*# t=(#(#   B.0 ` NecessityofObjectionbyTrialCounselBelow ` (#` (# 0  TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasheldthat,inadultcriminalcases,trialcounsels " failuretoobjecttoaprobationconditiononLentgroundsatthetimeofsentencing # waivesanychallengetothatconditiononappeal.(#= t ,# t=Peoplev.Welch#= t-# t=Ԁ(1993)5 $  Cal.4th228,234237#= tR.# R  t=.)#= t.# t=Althought#= t/# t=heCaliforniaSupremeCourthasnotyet % ! specificallydecidedwhetherthiscontemporaneousobjectionrulesetforthin &!" Peoplev.Welch,supra,appliesinjuveniledelinquencycases,severalappellate '"# courtshavedeclaredthatitdoes.(See#= te/# t=InreJustinS.(2001)#= t0# t=93Cal.App.4th811, (#$ 814815[SecondDistrict,DivisionFour#= t>1# T  t=]#= t1# t=;#= t2# t=InreJosueS#= tf2# t=.(1999)72Cal.App.4th )$% 168,173#= t2# V  t=Ԁ[SecondDistrict,DivisionFive]#= t;3# t=;#= t3# t=InreAbdirahamS#= t3# t=.(1997)58 *%& Cal.App.4th963,970#= t;4# X  t=Ԁ[FourthDistrict,DivisionOne]#= t4# t=.)Absentanobjection,adult +&' caseswillrequireraisingthisissueundertheumbrellaofineffectiveassistanceof  counselandjuvenilecaseswillmostlikelyrequirethisasanalternativeargument  aswell.(See#= t&5# t=Stricklandv.Washington#= t6# t=Ԁ(1984)466U.S.668,687694#= t6#   t=;#= tN7# t=InreAvena#= t7# t=  (1996)12Cal.4th694,721.)#= t7# t=(#(# #= tX8# t=#= t8# t=0  #= t8# t=Withrespecttounconstitutionalprobationconditions,theCaliforniaSupreme   Courtinaconcurringopiniondidnotextendthewaiverruletoprobation   conditionswhichinfringeuponaconstitutionalright.(Peoplev.Welch(1993)5   Cal.4th228#= tJ9# t=,240241(Arabian,J.,concurring).)#= t:# t=ԀTheappellatecourtinInreJustin   S.,supra,agreedthatappellatereviewwasnotwaivedbythefailuretoobjectat   thedispositionalhearingsincethedefendantcontestedtheconstitutionalityofthe   probationconditions.(InreJustinS.(2001)93Cal.App.4th811,814815;butsee   Peoplev.Gardineer(2000)79Cal.App.4th148,151[objectionrequired];#= t6;# t=Inre   JosueS.(1999)72Cal.App.4th168,173#= tK=# t=Ԁ[objectionrequired]#= t=# t=.)TheJustinS.   court,however,notedthatnotall constitutionaldefectsinconditionsofprobation  mayberaisedforthefirsttimeonappeal,sincetheremaybecircumstancesthatdo  notpresentpurequestionsoflawthatcanberesolvedwithoutreferencetothe  particularsentencingrecorddevelopedinthetrialcourt.(InreJustinS.,supra,  93Cal.App.4that815,fn.2.)Alternatively,appellatecounselmaywishto  considerarguingineffectiveassistanceofcounseliftrialcounselfailedtoobjectto  theprobationconditionsonconstitutionalgrounds.#= t+># t=Ԁ(See#= tTA# t=Stricklandv.Washington,  supra,#= tA# t=Ԁ466U.S.at687694#= tB# @  t=;#= tB# t=InreAvena,supra,#= tB# t=Ԁ12Cal.4that721.)#= t!C# t=(#(# #= twC#   t=  C.0 ` ExamplesofProbationConditionsthatmaybeObjectionable` (#` (#     ` 1.0 GangConditions #= tC# t=Ԁ#= tD# t= (# (# #= t%E#   `     h      ` 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.  Therewasevidencethatappellanthadusedafirearmduring  thecommissionofhiscrimes,hehadbeendrinkingonthe  nighthecommittedtheseoffenses,theincidentwaspossibly  drugrelated,andappellanthaduseddrugsinthepast.(#(#    `  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 (#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# 0 (# (#InreMartinez(1978)86Cal.App.3d577 (#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#SearchconditionnotupheldunderthetestsetforthinPeople  v.Lent,supra.Thedefendantwaspartofacrowdofpeople  yellingandthrowingbottles/cansatpolice.Thedefendant   wasconvictedofbatteryonapoliceofficer.Theappellate   courthoweverinvalidatedthesearchconditionbecausethe   presentoffensedidnotinvolveaconcealedweaponand   nothinginthedefendantspriorhistoryindicatedapropensity    topossessconcealedweaponsinthefuture.Thus,no factual   nexusexistedbetweenthecrime,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  (# (#    `  InreDwayneT.(Nov.22,2002,A097770[nonpub.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  t=Peoplev.Garcia#= tYw# t=(1993)19Cal.App.4th97  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#C#= tw#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 %!! unconstitutionalasitviolatedK==Ԁherfreedomoftravel,speech, &"" association,assembly,andtothepossessionandenjoymentofher '## property.Havingthedefendantmovefromonegeographicalareato ($$ anotherwasofminimalvaluetothepublicwhencomparedwiththe )%% infringementofherbasicconstitutionalrights. *&& #=K=J~#+'' (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (# InreWhite(1979)97Cal.App.3d141  (# (# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Probationconditionprohibitedthedefendantconvictedof  prostitutiontobebanishedfromcertainareasofFresno.Condition  wasunconstitutionalandoverbroadsincelegitimatereasonsaswell  asnonlegitimateonescouldbecarriedoutwithintherestricted  areas.  (# (#    ` 4.0 DrugTestingConditions   (# (# 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 ` (#` (# 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  (# (#    `  InreTerezM.(Nov.24,2003,A102995[nonpub.opn.])    0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#Conditionprohibitedtheminorfrombeingpresentatanycourt   proceedingunlesshewasaparty,defendant,orsubpoenaedwitness.   ThecourtupheldtheconditionunderLentanddidnotfindit   overbroad.Thecourtstatedthattherestrictiononcourtattendance   preventsthegatheringofgangmemberstointimidatewitnesses.  Althoughtheminordeniedbeingagangmember,therewassome  evidencethathehadsomecontactwithpersonsinvolvedingangs. (# (#    ` 6.0 MandatorySchoolAttendanceand/orGrades (# (#     `   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 ` (#` (# SK==Aconditionofprobationrequiringschoolattendancehasbeen '"# upheldunderLentasreasonablyrelatedtotherehabilitationand (#$ preventionoffuturecriminality.However,thecourtcannotimpose )$% aconditionthatmakesjuvenilehallautomaticbasedonjusta *%& reportedschoolabsencewithoutamedicalexcuse.#=K=ۘ#