Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 04-17-2017, 4:23 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ (The United States of America)
Posts: 3,540
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Arrow People v. Bryant: probation search of e-devices unconstitutional for certain convicts

California's 2nd District Court of Appeal decision - Probation search of electronic devices on a person convicted of carrying a concealed unregistered handgun

People v. Bryant

So a prosecutor, in getting his conviction on a guy who was carrying an unregistered handgun without a CCW permit in Pasadena, CA, asks the Judge to impose (as a condition of probation) the requirement that if the person on probation is searched, that his "text messages, emails, and photographs on any cellular phone or other electronic device in his possession or residence" can also be searched. The trial court said "sure, no problem", even over the defendant's objections. Defendant makes this an issue on appeal, and the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal strikes the condition as unconstitutional, under People v. Lent, (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486 and held that "a search of a defendant‟s cellular phone and other electronic devices implicates a defendant‟s constitutional rights". Just for the record, as of yet, I haven't read the Lent decision yet.

As a hypothetical, I would make the analogy that a prosecutor who asks a court to allow the Law Enforcement to demand a defendant's urine sample while on probation for some kind of credit card fraud, won't get it because the charge of fraud is not relevant to whether the guy needs his pee sample checked for drugs, unless his pee sample can detect that he/she was writing bad checks while going to the bathroom.

I hope that my title isn't misleading in any way. Otherwise, I thought this was interesting, in that, the Court of Appeal here asks the court below (in different language): "And what does the probationer's text messages, email, etc. have to do with whether the guy is being punished for carrying a loaded unregistered handgun?"

I also thought it might be relevant here because it involves a conviction of a guy who is carrying a concealed handgun, and gets caught with that handgun.

People v. Bryant

Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host., the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved. and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to