People v. Godina CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Godina contends: "The probation condition giving the probation department

unqualified power to approve or disapprove [her] place of residence or employment is

3 untailored and overbroad and violates [her] First Amendment rights to travel and free

association."

Probation terms may limit constitutional rights if those limitations are reasonably

necessary to meet the goals of probation. (People v. Bauer (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 937,

940-941 (Bauer).) Judicial discretion to set terms of probation is circumscribed by

constitutional considerations. (People v. Hackler (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1049, 1058.)

When a term impinges on a constitutional right, it must be carefully tailored and

reasonably related to the compelling state interest in reformation and rehabilitation.

(People v. Quiroz (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1128.) Where, as here, a probation term

is challenged on its face as unconstitutional, our review is de novo. (In re Shaun R.

(2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143.) Facial challenges to the constitutionality of

probation conditions may be raised on appeal without prior objection in the trial court.

(In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 883,…