Skip to content
Name: In re E.O.
Case #: H035462
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/29/2010
Summary

A probation condition prohibiting the minor from being within 25 feet of a courthouse when he knew gang proceedings were occurring was unconstitutionally overbroad. The minor was found to be a juvenile court ward and placed on probation. One probation condition was that he “not knowingly come within 25 feet of a Courthouse when the minor knows there are criminal or juvenile proceedings occurring which involves [sic] anyone the minor knows to be a gang member or where the minor knows a witness or victim of gang-related activity will be present, unless the minor is a party in the action or subpoenaed as a witness or needs access to the area for a legitimate purpose or has prior permission from his Probation Officer.” Despite being narrower than the condition at issue in People v. Perez (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 380, the Court of Appeal held it was unconstitutionally overbroad. Restricting the condition to gang-related proceedings was not enough. The court found it problematic that the condition disallowed the minor from being near the building. It also infringes on his ability to attend and voluntarily participate in other proceedings. The clause allowing his presence when he “needs access to the area for a legitimate purpose” does not save the condition because the language is too vague to effectively limit the restriction. The court doubted the condition was even necessary given other probation conditions restricting gang-related activity, but remanded to the trial court to reconsider its necessity.