In People v. Bryant, the Supreme Court today affirms the analysis a Court of Appeal used to hold it unreasonable for a superior court to condition the defendant’s release with mandatory supervision on his submission to searches of his electronic devices, including his cell phone.
The 2011 Realignment Legislation instituted supervision by a local probation department for certain low-level felony offenders who have served sentences in county jail instead of state prison. The court’s opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan concludes that a condition of that new type of release is “to be evaluated for reasonableness on a case-by-case basis under the test set out in People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481,” which the court had adopted to analyze probation conditions. The Attorney General didn’t challenge how the Court of Appeal applied the Lent test in today’s case, but instead unsuccessfully argued for the test used to evaluate parole conditions.
Two years ago, in In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1114, a 4-3 court applied the Lent test to invalidate an electronics search provision imposed as a condition of juvenile probation.
Although signing the court’s opinion, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye writes a concurrence to explain “the narrow scope of the majority opinion.” She authored the concurring and dissenting opinion in Ricardo P.
The court affirms the Second District, Division One, Court of Appeal. It disapproves 2014 opinions by the First District, Division Five, by the Sixth District, and by the Fourth District, Division Two.
