In re A.R. CA6

Discussion A. Unconstitutional Vagueness A.R. asserts that the graffiti condition is unconstitutionally vague because it does not contain a knowledge requirement and does not provide him with adequate notice of what is required of him. He maintains that the condition “must be stricken or, if possible, modified to lawfully achieve an intended legitimate purpose.” In particular, A.R. argues that “the phrase ‘graffiti-related materials’ is extraordinarily vague because it does not define these materials . . . .” A.R. contends that the condition requires him “to speculate as to what other people might consider to be ‘graffiti-related materials’ or ‘graffiti activity.’ ” A.R. also claims the condition is unconstitutionally vague because it lacks a knowledge requirement and “he could be in possession of the prohibited items without knowing it.” The People suggest modification of the condition to require A.R. to “not knowingly use or possess any graffiti-related materials, or knowingly engage in any illegal graffiti-related activity.” A.R. maintains that the People’s proposed modification does not cure the unconstitutional vagueness. “A probation condition ‘must be sufficiently precise…