Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. SF103684A, SF107822A & TF035129A
SCOTLAND, P. J.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant Dashanna Marie Reed pled guilty to various crimes in three different cases.
In case No. SF103684A, defendant pled guilty to grand theft arising out of her opening unauthorized credit accounts, at Lowe’s and The Home Depot, in the name of defendant’s employer and making unauthorized purchases in excess of $15,000. In case No. SF107822A, she pled guilty to welfare fraud and food stamp fraud arising from her receipt of more than $31,000 in aid in the form of cash, food stamps, and childcare services after she falsely claimed that her husband or the father of her children did not live in her home, and she failed to report his income. In case No. TF035129A, she pled guilty to embezzlement arising from opening credit lines in her employer’s name and purchasing over $9,000 in personal items.
In exchange for the guilty pleas, the court dismissed, with a Harvey waiver (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754), additional charges of grand theft, perjury, and failure to appear. Defendant was granted probation for a period of five years, with conditions including that she submit to unlimited warrantless searches. With respect to the welfare and food stamp fraud case, the court ordered her to serve one year in jail and pay $31,819.06 in restitution.
Defendant appeals, challenging the unlimited search condition of her probation. We shall affirm the judgment.
DISCUSSION
I
Defendant challenges the unlimited warrantless search condition of her probation. In her view, the condition is unlawful because it does not relate to the theft and fraud offenses of which she was convicted.
The search condition states that defendant must submit her person, vehicle, place of residence or area over which she has to control “to search for and seizure of,” followed by several options: (1) Narcotics, drugs and other contraband, (2) stolen property, (3) weapons, (4) firearms, (5) ammunition, and (6) unlimited. The court selected “unlimited.” Defense counsel objected to the unlimited nature of the search condition, but did not specify why or what would be a more reasonable search condition.
Defendant now says the court should have “tailor[ed] the search condition to theft,” rather than permit unlimited searches for items such as “alcohol, narcotics, weapons, ammunition, [and] firearms.”
We review conditions of probation for abuse of discretion. As we will explain, there was no such abuse in this case. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1121; People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 233.)
“Generally, ‘[a] condition of probation will not be held invalid unless it “(1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality....” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] This test is conjunctive--all three prongs must be satisfied before a reviewing court will invalidate a probation term. [Citations.] As such, even if a condition of probation has no relationship to the crime of which a defendant was convicted and involves conduct that is not itself criminal, the condition is valid as long the condition is reasonably related to preventing future criminality.” (People v. Olguin (2008) 45 Cal.4th 375, 379-380.)
“Penal Code section 1203, subdivision (a), defines probation as ‘the suspension of the imposition or execution of a sentence and the order of conditional and revocable release in the community under the supervision of a probation officer.’ (Italics added.) Generally speaking, conditions of probation ‘are meant to assure that the probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation and that the community is not harmed by the probationer’s being at large. [Citation.] These same goals require and justify the exercise of supervision to assure that the restrictions are in fact observed.’ [Citation.] For example, probation conditions authorizing searches ‘aid in deterring further offenses... and in monitoring compliance with the terms of probation. [Citations.] By allowing close supervision of probationers, probation search conditions serve to promote rehabilitation and reduce recidivism while helping to protect the community from potential harm by probationers.’ [Citation.] A condition of probation that enables a probation officer to supervise his or her charges effectively is, therefore, ‘reasonably related to future criminality.’ [Citations.]” (People v. Olguin, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 380-381; see also People v. Balestra (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 57, 65-67.)
Defendant’s unlimited search condition effectuates this purpose. She was convicted of grand theft, embezzlement, and welfare fraud, thereby demonstrating that she is not trustworthy and requires close supervision. The unlimited search condition enables the probation officer to search for any items that might be stolen or fraudulently obtained, which conceivably could include alcohol, narcotics, or firearms. Moreover, the search condition ensures that defendant is following the law, and a discovery of firearms or narcotics would show she is not because she cannot lawfully have narcotics (Health & Saf. Code., §§ 11032, 11054, 11055) and, as a convicted felon, she cannot own firearms (Pen. Code, § 12021).
Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an unlimited search condition.
II
Defendant also contends the unlimited nature of the search condition unconstitutionally violates her reasonable expectation of privacy. Not so.
“[A] probationer who has been granted the privilege of probation on condition that he submit at any time to a warrantless search may have no reasonable expectation of traditional Fourth Amendment protection.” (People v. Mason (1971) 5 Cal.3d 759, 765, fn. omitted, disapproved on another ground in People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481, 486, fn. 1.) When a defendant agrees to permit warrantless searches in order to obtain probation rather than a prison term, the defendant voluntarily waives whatever claim of privacy he might otherwise have had. (People v. Bravo (1987) 43 Cal.3d 600, 607.) “We read the consent... as a complete waiver of that probationer’s Fourth Amendment rights, save only his right to object to harassment or searches conducted in an unreasonable manner.” (Id. at p. 607.)
Defendant does not complain that any arbitrary or harassing searches have been conducted; she simply complains about the imposition of an unlimited warrantless search term. If defendant believed the conditions of probation were more onerous than the potential sentence, she could have refused probation and chosen to serve the sentence. (People v. Mason, supra, 5 Cal.3dat p.764.) She did not. Instead, her attorney objected to the unlimited nature of the condition after it had been imposed by the court, without proffering an alternative search condition that counsel believed was more reasonable. Moreover, narrowing the search condition to evidence of anything obtained by fraud or theft, as defendant suggests on appeal, is the equivalent of an unlimited search condition given that the list of items which may be obtained via theft or fraud and hidden in her home or on her person is endless.
In any event, as defendant concedes, a Fourth Amendment “right to privacy will not be infringed upon when an involuntary search condition is properly imposed.” As we explained above in part I, the unlimited search condition was properly imposed. Therefore, defendant’s constitutional claim fails.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON, J., HULL, J.