People v. Garcia (1993)

In People v. Garcia (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 97, 102, an appellate court determined that "a condition of probation that prohibited appellant from associating with persons who, unbeknownst to him, have criminal records or use narcotics" was unconstitutionally overbroad because it forbid "association with persons not known to him to be users and sellers of narcotics, felons or ex-felons." The court modified the condition to provide that he was "not to associate with persons he knows to be users or sellers of narcotics, felons or ex-felons." (Id. at p. 103.) The Court held that a probationary term requiring the defendant not associate with users and sellers of narcotics, felons, or ex-felons was constitutionally overbroad in failing to recognize that the defendant may, inadvertently, socialize with individuals unknown to him to fall within such categories. (People v. Garcia, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 102.) Likewise, the court found an implicit recognition of the knowledge requirement within the condition incompatible with constitutional goals: "the rule that probation conditions that implicate constitutional rights must be narrowly drawn, and the importance of constitutional rights, lead us to the conclusion that this factor should not be left to implication." (Ibid.) Hence, it explicitly modified the defendant's condition to prohibit him from associating with persons he knew to be users or sellers of narcotics, felons, or ex-felons. (Id. at p. 103.) The trial court imposed a probation condition that the defendant not associate with felons, ex-felons, users or sellers of narcotics, which implicated the constitutional right of freedom of association. (Id. at pp. 100, 102.) The appellate court modified the probation condition to provide that the defendant was not to associate with persons he knew to be felons or users or sellers of narcotics. (Id. at p. 103.) The appellate court rejected the People's argument that modification was unnecessary because knowledge was implied. (Id. at p. 102.) "The rule that probation conditions that implicate constitutional rights must be narrowly drawn, and the importance of constitutional rights, lead us to the conclusion that this factor should not be left to implication." (Ibid.) The Court held that a probationary term requiring the defendant not associate with users and sellers of narcotics, felons, or ex-felons was constitutionally overbroad in failing to recognize that the defendant may, inadvertently, socialize with individuals unknown to him to fall within such categories. (Garcia, supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 102.) Likewise, the court found an implicit recognition of the knowledge requirement within the condition incompatible with constitutional goals: "the rule that probation conditions that implicate constitutional rights must be narrowly drawn, and the importance of constitutional rights, lead us to the conclusion that this factor should not be left to implication." (Ibid.) Hence, it explicitly modified the defendant's condition to prohibit him from associating with persons he knew to be users or sellers of narcotics, felons, or ex-felons. (Id. at p. 103.) The Court of Appeal limited a probation condition that prohibited the defendant from associating with certain groups of persons (drug users and sellers and felons) because the condition did not require that the defendant have knowledge of the status of these persons. The court modified the condition to prohibit knowing association with those persons. (Id. at pp. 102-103.) This modification was made because the condition was not "sufficiently narrowly drawn." (Id. at p. 102.)