Bryant contended that the requirement was invalid and unconstitutionally overbroad. 1122–1123.) The Attorney General asserted that the electronic search condition was reasonably related to preventing future criminality under Lent. 1128.) In the case of electronic search conditions, the salient burden on a probationer is the burden imposed on his or her privacy interest. 486.) “A probation condition that imposes substantially greater burdens on the probationer than the circumstances warrant is not a ‘reasonable’ one.” ( Ricardo P. Held : The Second District Court of Appeal explained that under Lent, a court abuses its discretion when it imposes a term or condition that, among other things, requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113, the Supreme Court transferred the current case to the Second District with directions to vacate its April 2017 opinion and reconsider in light of Ricardo P. After it decided that other case in In re Ricardo P. The state Supreme Court granted Bryant’s petition for review and deferred consideration of the case pending its decision in another case. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 and struck the condition. In an opinion filed in April 2017, the California Second District Court of Appeal agreed with Bryant that the condition was invalid under People v. Bryant appealed the electronic search condition requirement. During the mandatory supervision period, the court required Bryant to submit to searches of text messages, e-mails, and photographs on any cellular phone or other electronic device in his possession or residence. The court imposed a two-year sentence, part of which was to be served under mandatory supervision. The officer searched the car and found a semiautomatic handgun under the front passenger seat.Ī jury convicted Bryant of carrying a concealed firearm in a vehicle, and found that the firearm was loaded and not registered to him. Bryant and his Bryant’s girlfriend complied when the officer asked them to step out of the car so he could check for marijuana. A Pasadena police officer approached the driver’s side of the car and smelled a strong odor of marijuana coming from the car. Bryant was in the passenger seat and his girlfriend sat in the driver’s seat. Clydell Bryant and his girlfriend were smoking marijuana in a parked car in the area. 5th 839 (2019)įacts : On a night in August 2014, Pasadena Police Department officers responded to a call for service outside a housing complex where a group of individuals were drinking and refusing to leave the area. Lent because it imposed a significant privacy burden and there was no information connecting it with preventing future criminality. Defendant’s electronic device search condition was invalid under People v.

La county ercom commissioners