People v. Contreras CA4/1

DISCUSSION

A. The Cell Phone Search Condition is Invalid and Defense Counsel’s Objection Sufficiently Preserved the Issue for Appeal. The probation officer asked the court to impose condition 6n, requiring Contreras to submit his “person, vehicle, residence, property, personal effects, computers[,] recordable media [and] and cellphone to search at any time with our without a warrant, and with or without reasonable cause . . . .” According to the officer, this was necessary to ensure Contreras complies with the criminal protective order by “not contacting the victim and harassing her in any way.” Although condition 6n encompasses a variety of electronic devices including “computers and recordable media,” defense counsel objected only to “electronic searches of [Contreras’s] cell phone.” After asserting that the risk of Contreras contacting Sarah was “very di minimus” and “[could] be addressed in other manners,” counsel explained, “When you look at the

The facts are taken from the probation report. (See People v. Barasa (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 287, 290, fn. 1.) 3 amount of private information and privacy concerns that have to do with searching somebody’s cell phone, I…