People v. Hove

[1005]

Opinion

WORK, J.

Terry Hove appeals a judgment convicting him of possessing methamphetamine for personal use (Health & Saf. Code,

2

§ 11377, subd. (a)) and possessing marijuana for sale (§ 11359). The court suspended Hove’s sentence and placed him on probation, one condition of which requires him to register with the local police or sheriff in any community in which he is domiciled. Hove challenges this statutorily mandated requirement as unconstitutionally violating his right to personal privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § l.)

3

He also contends the registration requirement is barred by Penal Code section 654 prohibiting multiple punishment for the same act. Concluding the registration requirement does not unduly burden the right of privacy of a controlled substance offender, and is not prohibited as a dual punishment, we affirm the judgment.

4

I

The Registration Requirement Does Not Violate Hove’s Right to Privacy

The registration condition Hove contests is mandated by section 11590, which states;

“[A]ny person who is convicted in the State of California of any offense defined in Section . . . 11359, ... or subdivision (a) of Section 11377, . . . shall within 30 days of his or her coming into any county or city, or city and county in which he or she resides or is temporarily domiciled for that length of time, register with the chief of police of the city in which he or she resides or the sheriff of the county if he or she resides in an unincorporated area.”

5

Hove contends this requirement for him to register with the local authorities violates his right of privacy, specifically his right to be left alone.

6

However, the constitutional right of privacy is not absolute. Reasonable limitations that do not unduly burden that right are valid.