People v. Guzman

Filed 5/9/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A149740 v. (Sonoma County BENITO GUZMAN, Super. Ct. No. SCR-648774) Defendant and Appellant. Benito Guzman appeals from an order modifying the conditions of his supervised probation to explicitly authorize warrantless searches of his electronic devices. Guzman contends (1) the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the modification because no new circumstances existed and (2) the electronic search probation condition violates Guzman’s constitutional right to privacy. We affirm the order. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Guzman’s 2015 Offense and Sentence In April 2015, Guzman was charged with two felonies: (count 1) arranging a meeting with a minor for the purpose of committing a sexual offense (Pen. Code, § 288.4, subd. (b)1); and (count 2) attempting to commit a lewd act with a minor under the age of 14 (§ 664/288, subd. (a)). The charges were based on evidence gathered by officers conducting an undercover “sting” operation, which showed that Guzman used his cell phone and the internet Web site to arrange and negotiate payment for a sexual encounter with a 19-year-old female named “Sexy Shauna” and her 13-year-old sister “Jenny.” 1 References to a statute are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise stated. 1 In July 2015, Guzman pleaded guilty to the count 1 felony sex offense pursuant to a negotiated disposition, which provided that the court would dismiss count 2, suspend imposition of judgment, and impose a sentence of nine months in jail and three years felony probation. As part of the negotiated disposition, Guzman acknowledged that he would be required to register as a sex offender and be subject to “Sex Offender Caseload Conditions” of probation (also called SAFER probation conditions). On September 1, 2015, Guzman was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated disposition. At his sentencing hearing, Guzman reviewed and separately acknowledged the SAFER probation conditions, which were incorporated into the terms of his probation. Among other things, the SAFER probation conditions required participation in sex offender treatment/programs, restricted interactions with children, and provided that Guzman may not “view, purchase, possess or have access to any videotapes, films and/or magazines, CD’s or any medium which depict minor(s) or people representing themselves as minors(s) in sexual activity.” The SAFER probation conditions also impose the following requirements on Guzman: “Submit to warrantless search and seizure of person, property, personal business or vehicle any time of the day or night or residence any time of the day or reasonable hour of the night by any Probation or Law Enforcement Officer”; and “Provide Probation Officer with keys, combinations or access codes to any and all gates or security doors which are required for entry onto any property where you reside.” B. The California Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) While Guzman was on probation, the ECPA went into effect on January 1, 2016. (§ 1546, et seq.; Stats. 2015, ch. 651, § 1.) As pertinent here, ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals