People v. Lira CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Oct 9, 2020 No. D076623Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a probation condition requiring a defendant to report contacts with law enforcement is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad because, when read reasonably, it applies only to formal interactions where an officer requests information or initiates an investigation, rather than casual encounters.

Issues

Whether a probation condition requiring a defendant to report 'contacts' with law enforcement is unconstitutionally vague.
Whether the probation condition is unconstitutionally overbroad by infringing on the defendant's rights to free association and travel.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A reasonable reading of this condition would distinguish between a casual, random interaction with a law enforcement officer, like exchanging pleasantries, from situations in which Lira is a witness to a crime or is stopped by a law enforcement officer”

“the condition does not improperly impinge on Lira’s constitutional rights.”

Filed 10/9/20 P. v. Lira CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D076623

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS309128)

MIGUEL ANGEL LIRA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Francis M. Devaney, Judge. Affirmed. Britt Donaldson, under appointment by the Court, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Pulos and Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for the Plaintiff and Respondent. Miguel Angel Lira pled guilty to a felony charge of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. The court sentenced him to three years of probation, including 365 days in custody. Although Lira did not object to any probation

conditions at the time of sentencing, he now maintains probation condition No. 6(k), which requires him to report contacts with law enforcement to his probation officer, is vague and overbroad and places an undue burden on him because it infringes on his constitutional rights to freely associate and travel. We disagree and will affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Police contacted Lira for being in a park after hours. During the conversation, Lira threw a methamphetamine glass pipe on the ground, causing it to shatter. Although he admitted the pipe was his, he claimed it was for marijuana. Police placed Lira under arrest for possessing the drug paraphernalia and searched him. They found a fixed blade knife concealed under his jacket. The complaint charged Lira with carrying a concealed dirk or dagger

People v. Lira CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D076623

MIGUEL ANGEL LIRA,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

HALLER, J.

DATO, J.

AI Brief