From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kantner

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Oct 15, 2019
A155552 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019)

Opinion

A155552

10-15-2019

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC D. KANTNER, Defendant and Appellant.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CR942198-B) MEMORANDUM OPINION

We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. --------

Eric D. Kantner pled no contest to fraudulently receiving welfare benefits in excess of $950 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 10980, subd. (c)(2)). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Kantner on probation.

At issue here is the electronic search aspect of probation condition 7, which provides: "The defendant agrees to waive his 4th Amendment right to reasonable search and seizure and shall submit . . . any electronic communication devices . . . under his control to search and seizure at any time during the term of his probation by any probation officer or law enforcement officer, acting with or without a search warrant, probable cause or reasonable suspicion."

Kantner argues the phrase "electronic communication devices" (electronic search condition) is overbroad because it does not limit the type of electronic information subject to search. The Attorney General concedes the condition should be stricken and the matter remanded. The Attorney General suggests the trial court should ensure the electronic search condition comports with In re Ricardo P. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1113 (Ricardo P.), where our high court invalidated an electronic search condition under the third prong of People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 because there was no evidence the defendant had used or would "use electronic devices in connection with . . . illegal activity." (Ricardo P., at p. 1116.)

We accept the Attorney General's concession and strike the electronic search condition. We also adopt the Attorney General's suggestion and direct the trial court, on remand, to consider whether a narrower condition will comport with Ricardo P., supra, 7 Cal.5th 1113.

DISPOSITION

The electronic search condition set forth in probation condition 7 is stricken and the matter is remanded for the trial court to consider whether to impose a narrower electronic search condition which comports with Ricardo P., supra, 7 Cal.5th 1113. (See In re Alonzo M. (Sept. 20, 2019, A154923) ___Cal.App.5th___ [striking electronic search condition and remanding for trial court to consider whether to adopt a more narrowly tailored condition].) In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

/s/_________

Jones, P. J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Needham, J. /s/_________
Burns, J.


Summaries of

People v. Kantner

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE
Oct 15, 2019
A155552 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019)
Case details for

People v. Kantner

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ERIC D. KANTNER, Defendant and…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

Date published: Oct 15, 2019

Citations

A155552 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2019)