In re I.P. CA3

DISCUSSION

I Scienter Is Implied In Probation Conditions The minor claims that “General condition of probation six and special conditions of probation 34 and 35 . . . are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad” because they lack a knowledge requirement. Thus, he “could unknowingly violate the terms of his probation.” The minor claims these conditions “must be stricken and modified” so as to include a knowledge requirement. “[T]he underpinning of a vagueness challenge is the due process concept of ‘fair warning.’ [Citation.] The rule of fair warning consists of ‘the due process concepts of preventing arbitrary law enforcement and providing adequate notice to potential offenders’ [citation], protections that are ‘embodied in the due process clauses of the federal and California Constitutions.’ ” (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 890.) The minor concedes that just two years ago in People v. Patel (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 956, 960, this court announced “our intent to henceforth no longer entertain this issue on appeal.” We held that, hereafter we would “construe every probation condition proscribing a probationer’s presence, possession, association, or similar action to require…