In re. Harold E., No. H044085 (Cal. App. Sixth Dist.) May 11, 2017


Harold E., a minor serving probation following commission of second degree robbery, complained that a condition committing to his probation officer the power to limit Harold E.’s associations was unconstitutional both facially and as applied. The California Appellate Court disagreed, finding that the probation officer was limited in his ability to constrain Harold E.’s associations, and could not do so without consideration of Harold E.’s rehabilitation.

Juvenile freedoms are not coextensive with those of adults, the appellate court noted. Harold E., a ward of the state, is subject to the state’s exercise of its parens patriae powers. The probation officer may only preclude association with those deemed a threat to completion of probation the word ‘threat,’ in its ordinary meaning, does not suffer from vagueness.

People v. Harold E. (In re Harold E.) (Cal. App., 2017)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s