(E.g., In re Ricardo P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 676, review granted Feb. 17, 2016, S230923, (Ricardo P.); In re Juan R. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1083, review granted July 25, 2018, S249256, (Juan R.); In re J.E. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 795, review granted Oct. 12, 2016, S236628.) As our Division Five colleagues recently (and aptly) summarized in Juan R., supra, 22 Cal.App.5th 1083: "Pending resolution from our Supreme Court, the divisions of this appellate district have reached different conclusions regarding electronic search conditions.
Three holding condition reasonable but overbroad].)" (In re Juan R. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1083, 1089, review granted July 25, 2018, S249256 (Juan R.).) Numerous other cases raising this issue are pending before our Supreme Court: In re Ricardo P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 676, 679-680, review granted February 17, 2016, S230923; In re Patrick F. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 104, 107, review granted February 17, 2016, S231428; In re Alejandro R. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 556, 560, review granted March 9, 2016, S232240; In re Mark C. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 520, 529, review granted April 13, 2016, S232849; In re A.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 758, 761-762, review granted May 25, 2016, S233932 (A.S.)
(2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 288 (P.O.) [Division One holding condition reasonable but overbroad]; In re J.B. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 749 (J.B.) [Division Three striking condition as unreasonable]; In reErica R. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 907 (Erica R.) [Division Two striking condition as unreasonable]; In re Malik J. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 896 [Division Three holding condition reasonable but overbroad].)" (In re Juan R. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1083, 1089 (Juan R.).) Numerous other cases raising this issue are pending before our Supreme Court: In re Ricardo P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 676, 679-680, review granted February 17, 2016, S230923; In re Patrick F. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 104, 107, review granted February 17, 2016, S231428; In re Alejandro R. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 556, 560, review granted March 9, 2016, S232240; In re Mark C. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 520, 529, review granted April 13, 2016, S232849; In re A.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 758, 761-762, review granted May 25, 2016, S233932 (A.S.)
(In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889.) We review reasonableness challenges for abuse of discretion and constitutional challenges de novo. (In re Juan R. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1083, 1088, review granted July 25, 2018, S249256.) 1. Reasonableness Challenge
Giving police and probation officers "robust access" to Tommy's electronic devices is appropriate to ensure he does not reoffend while on probation and does not contact his co-participants in or victims of his crimes. (Q.R., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 1238; see also, In re Juan R. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1083, 1091-1092, review granted July 25, 2018, S249256 [approving electronics search condition against Lent and overbreadth challenges in part because minor was subject to associational prohibition under terms of probation];People v. Acosta (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 225, 234, review granted Apr. 25, 2018, S247656 [electronics search condition valid to monitor forbidden contacts, even where device not used in the offense].) And because Tommy is a ward of the court, he is subject to more restrictive conditions than would be lawful for a similarly-situated adult offender.
(Id. at p. 296.) And more recently, in In re Juan R. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1083, review granted July 25, 2018, S249256 (Juan R.), our Division Five colleagues upheld an electronics search condition because the third Lent prong was not satisfied after concluding "[t]he condition 'reasonably relates to enabling the effective supervision of [Juan's] compliance with other probation conditions.' [Citation.] Most importantly, it will deter Juan from planning future crimes with the other minors who participated in the instant offense. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . Juan committed a violent felony while on informal supervision, thereby raising larger public safety concerns.
(See, e.g., In re Juan R. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1083, review granted July 25, 2018, S249256 [Division Five upholding condition as reasonable and not overbroad]; In re P.O. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 288 [this division holding condition reasonable but overbroad]; In re J.B. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 749 [Division Three striking condition as unreasonable].
DISPOSITION The opinion previously filed, People v. Juan R. (May 2, 2018, No. A151254) 22 Cal.App.5th 1083, is vacated. The appeal is dismissed as moot.
cases, the probation condition has been upheld, while others have invalidated the condition. (See In re Ricardo P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 676, review granted Feb. 17, 2016, S230923; In re Patrick F. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 104, review granted Feb. 17, 2016, S231428; In re Alejandro R. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 556, review granted Mar. 9, 2016, S232240; In re Mark C. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 520, review granted Apr. 13, 2016, S232849; In re A.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 758, review granted May 25, 2016, S233932; In re J.E. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 795, review granted Oct. 12, 2016, S236628; People v. Nachbar (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 1122, review granted Dec. 14, 2016, S238210; In re Q.R. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1231, review granted Apr. 12, 2017, S240222; People v. Bryant (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 396, review granted June 28, 2017, S241937; People v. Trujillo (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 574, review granted Nov. 29, 2017, S244650; People v. Maldonado (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 138, review granted June 20, 2018, S248800; In re Juan R. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1083, review granted July 25, 2018, S249256.) --------
(See, e.g., In re Juan R. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1083, review granted July 25, 2018, S249256 [Division Five of this district upholding electronic search condition as reasonable and not overbroad]; In re A.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 758, review granted May 25, 2016, S233932 [Division Four of this district upholding condition]; In re J.B. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 749 [Division Three of this district striking condition as unreasonable under Lent]; In re Patrick F. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 104, review granted Feb. 17, 2016, S231428 [condition not stricken but found overbroad and modified by Division Five of this district]; In re Ricardo P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 676, review granted Feb. 17, 2016, S230923 [this division finding condition reasonable but remanding for modification due to overbreadth]; Erica R., supra, 240 Cal.App.4th 907 [Division Two of this district striking condition as unreasonable under Lent].)