California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Emrick is that probation conditions cannot delegate excessive judicial authority to probation departments to determine the nature of sanctions and cannot deny custody credits for time in residential treatment without a knowing and voluntary waiver, under circumstances where conditions give probation officers open-ended discretion to jail probationers based on unilateral determinations of treatment non-completion.

The Rule of Armstrong v. Superior Court is that Penal Code section 1000.7 grants probation departments, not trial courts, the authority to determine whether defendants meet statutory criteria for young adult deferred entry of judgment programs, under circumstances where the Legislature has explicitly assigned this determination to the probation department through clear statutory language.

The Rule of In re E.J. is that Penal Code section 29820, which prohibits minors adjudged wards of the juvenile court for specified offenses from possessing firearms until age 30, is facially constitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, under circumstances where the prohibition is based on a prior juvenile adjudication for qualifying criminal conduct.

The Rule of Scott Meiner v. The Superior Court of Orange County is that an Apple Pay account constitutes a "financial account" for purposes of probation search limitations and must be excluded from warrantless probation searches when the probation terms expressly exclude "financial accounts," under circumstances where the probation terms specifically limit search authorization and do not extend to financial accounts.

The Rule of In re Christian V. is that a juvenile case becomes final for Estrada retroactivity purposes when the time to appeal the dispositional order expires or direct review is exhausted, regardless of whether the minor remains on probation or whether subsequent post-judgment orders are entered, under circumstances where the minor did not timely appeal the original dispositional order.

The Rule of People v. Flores is that an electronics search condition for probation is constitutional and reasonable when the defendant used electronic devices as integral tools in the commission of the underlying offense, under circumstances where the defendant used internet-based platforms and VOIP technology to facilitate drug sales and conceal their identity.

The Rule of Meiner is that Apple Pay accounts constitute "financial accounts" under probation search terms that exclude such accounts from warrantless searches, under circumstances where the probation conditions explicitly exclude "financial accounts" from the search authorization and the Apple Pay account is licensed as a money transmitter and regulated by financial authorities.

The Rule of *People v. Parker B.* is that when a juvenile court dismisses a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 782 after adjudication without qualification, the dismissal encompasses both the petition and all findings made on the offenses alleged therein, thereby satisfying section 786(d)'s requirement that "the finding on that offense was dismissed" for purposes of sealing records involving Penal Code section 707(b) offenses committed at age 14 or older, under circumstances where the juvenile has satisfactorily completed probation and the court has not expressly limited the scope of its dismissal.

The Rule of People v. Tourville is that a trial court abuses its discretion in denying mental health diversion based on general public safety concerns beyond the statutory definition of "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" (risk of committing a super strike), and cannot require a defendant to plead guilty to obtain the same treatment program that would be available under diversion, under circumstances where the court finds the defendant eligible and suitable for diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36.