In re Andrew M. CA4/3

INTRODUCTION

The juvenile court found that Andrew M., then 15 years old, came within the provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code section 601, subdivision (b), due to 1 habitual truancy. The court declared him a ward of the court. Andrew was not removed from his parents’ custody, but, in its disposition order, the court imposed “usual terms and conditions of probation,” including that Andrew must “[s]ubmit [his] person, residence and property to search and seizure by any peace or probation officer or school official during school hours anytime during the school day, with or without warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion” (the probation condition). Andrew solely argues in this appeal that the probation condition is unreasonable and unconstitutionally overbroad with regard to its search requirement; he does not challenge the probation condition as to its seizure requirement. For the reasons we explain post, we conclude the search requirement of the probation condition is invalid under the test set forth in People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486 (Lent), because it has no relationship to Andrew’s habitual truancy, it relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal,…