Mandatory supervision condition requiring defendant to obtain permission before leaving California is constitutional and reasonably related to defendant’s future criminality. Relkin entered a guilty plea to resolve two pending cases charging various drug sales offenses. He was given a split sentence in county prison. On appeal he challenged several of the supervision conditions. Held: Remanded for modification of one term. A defendant placed on mandatory supervision is under the direction of a county probation officer in accordance with terms and conditions generally applicable to probationers. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(5)(B)(1).) A condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it “(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal,” and (3) is not reasonably related to future criminality (People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481). In order to withstand a vagueness challenge, a probation term must be sufficiently precise for the defendant to know what is required of him and for the court to ascertain when the term has been violated. A probation condition that limits the defendant’s constitutional rights must be narrowly tailored to avoid being invalidated as overbroad. The supervision term requiring Relkin to obtain written permission from the probation officer before leaving California is reasonable because he was convicted of crimes involving the sale and transportation of drugs. The condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality because of the relationship between the sale and transportation of drugs and the exercise of the right to travel. It is constitutional because it is closely tailored to the purpose of monitoring Relkin’s movements from and to California by requiring that he obtain permission before doing so and is sufficiently precise for Relkin to know what is required of him.
The supervision condition requiring defendant to report contacts or incidents involving peace officers requires modification. One supervision term requires Relkin to report any arrests or contacts or incidents involving police officers. The requirement that he report arrests is clear and reasonable. However, the condition is vague in part because it does not give fair warning as to what sorts of interactions with police Relkin is required to report. The matter is remanded for clarification of this condition.
The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C078628.PDF