In re C.G. CA3

Filed 10/7/20 In re C.G. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

In re C.G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C089292 Law.

THE PEOPLE, (Super. Ct. Nos. JDSQ18227, JDSQ17293) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Minor C.G., identified as an active gang member, was charged with multiple gun and assaultive crimes, most with gang allegations and enhancements. A search of his cell phone (pursuant to a warrant) revealed that immediately before and after pistol whipping and robbing his companion, he had sought permission and then approval via text messages from a more senior member of the gang with which the minor was affiliated.

1

The search also revealed photographs of the minor throwing gang signs, as well as pictures of weapons and marijuana. The minor resolved two pending cases by pleading no contest to two counts of (misdemeanor) grand theft of a person, carrying a concealed stolen firearm, and battery with serious bodily injury. The juvenile court placed him on probation with various conditions, including that he submit electronic devices under his control to warrantless searches “of any medium of communication reasonably likely to reveal whether you are engaged in gang activity” and provide all information necessary to access the information specified. On appeal, the minor challenges the electronics search condition, contending it is unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent) as understood in light of In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 (Ricardo P.) because it is not reasonably related to future criminal conduct and is unconstitutionally overbroad. Because we find the record supports this narrowly tailored search condition, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The May 25, 2017 wardship petition (the 2017 petition) alleged the minor had committed second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c); count one)1; misdemeanor endangering the health of a child (§ 273a, subd. (b); count two); misdemeanor grand theft from a person (§§ 17, subd. (b)(4), 487, subd. (c); count three); attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(2); count four); battery on school property (§ 243.2, subd. (a); count five); and a misdemeanor drug charge. On August 24, 2017, and following a special circumstance finding, the court placed the minor on informal probation.