CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL RULES PROBATION TERMS MUST ADDRESS PROBATIONER'S INDIVIDUAL NEEDS
PROBATION CAN'T HAVE RIGID POLICIES WHICH AREN'T PARTICULAR TO A SPECIFIC DEFENDANT'S SITUATION (People v. Smith; 2007 DJ DAR 9934; DJ, 7/3/07; C/A 2nd, Div. 1)
The defendant was convicted of Penal Code section 288(a) and was granted probation. One of Probation was that he obey all orders of probation. But the Los Angeles Probation Department had a regulation prohibiting any defendant who has to register under Penal Code section 290 (registration for sex offenders) from leaving the county for any purpose. The defendant's job, however, required him to leave Los Angeles County sometimes, though he always returned at night. Of course, probation wouldn't relent.
The California Court of Appeal finds that probation can't just have policies which aren't particularized to an individual defendant's situation.
Practice Pointer: We must seek out and challenge these "policies" of our respective probation departments citing the Smith case. If need be, file an injunction to stop the application of such a policy. Otherwise, appeal. But don't let them continue. Probation often times believes it has more power than it does. The Smith case clears that up nicely, thank you!
