Sun. Sep 19th, 2021

Darren Chaker was victorious in a case where Government attempted to abridge the First Amendment as part of a condition of probation. See article here. Having expertise in the field here is some background on the law to challenge state conditions of probation.

In granting probation, the trial court has broad discretion to impose terms and conditions. (Penal Code sec. 1203.1, subd. (a); People v. Richards (1976) 17 Cal.3d 614, 619.) In imposing probation conditions, the juvenile court’s power is even broader than that of a criminal court. (In re Christopher M. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 684, 692.) The juvenile court is authorized to impose and require any and all reasonable conditions that it may determine fitting and proper to the end that justice maybe done and the reformation and rehabilitation of the ward enhanced. (Welfare and Institutions Code, sections 727, 730; In re Kazuo G. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) However, this discretion is not boundless. (In re James C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1198, 1203; In re Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 910.)

Probation conditions may be challenged for vagueness or overbreadth even if no objection was made in the trial court. (In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 889.) Facial vagueness challenges are reviewed denovo. (In re Shaun R. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1129, 1143.) A vague or overbroad probation condition may be stricken or, if possible, modified to lawfully achieve an intended legitimate purpose. (In re E.O., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1157; Victor L., supra, 182 Cal.App.4th at pp. 916, 921.)

The due process clauses of the United States and California Constitutions require that probation conditions be sufficiently precise for the probationer to know what is required of him. (U.S. Const., Amends. V, XIV; Cal. Const., art. I secs. 7, 24; In re H. C. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1070.) A condition that does not provide adequate notice of prohibited conduct is void for vagueness. (Ibid.) Conditions which infringe on constitutional rights may not be invalid if they are tailored specifically to meet the needs of the juvenile. (See In reE.O. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1149, 1153.) “[W]here a condition of probation impinges upon the exercise of a fundamental right and is challenged on constitutional grounds [the reviewing court] must… determine whether the condition is impermissibly overbroad.” (People v. Zaring (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 362, 370.)

Darren Chaker further notes, If “a condition of probation requires a waiver of precious constitutional rights, the condition must be narrowly drawn; to the extent it is overbroad it is not reasonably related to the compelling state interest in reformation and rehabilitation and is an unconstitutional restriction ‘on the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights. If available alternative means exist which are less violative of a constitutional right and are narrowly drawn so as to correlate more closely with the purpose contemplated, those alternatives should be used … (People v. Pointer (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1128, 1139, italics in original; see also Zaring, supra, at p. 371; In re Frank V (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1232, 1242; People v. Watkins (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1686, 1688.) “A clear and precise enactment may nevertheless be ‘overbroad’ if in its reach it prohibits constitutionally protected conduct.” (People ex rel Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1115.)

Last, a condition which impinges on constitutional rights and is not tailored carefully and is not reasonably related to the compelling state interest in reformation and rehabilitation of the juvenile is constitutionally overbroad. (Victor L., supra, 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 910; In re E.O., supra, at p. 1153.) The Sixth District Court of Appeal has framed the “essential question in an overbreadth challenge” as “the closeness of the fit between the legitimate purpose of the restriction and the burden it imposes on the defendant’s constitutional rights.” (E.O., ibid.)

Ultimately, if the conditions of probation are not tied directedly into rehabilitation or protection of the public, but are more punitive and do not have a nexus to the crime convicted of, seek out an attorney to discuss the matter.

By Darren Chaker

For almost two decades Darren Chaker regularly has worked with defense attorneys and high net worth people on a variety of sensitive issues from Los Angeles to Dubai. With a gift of knowledge about the First Amendment and big firm expertise in brief research and writing, Darren Chaker puts his knowledge to use for law firms and non-profit organizations. When it comes to forensics and social media investigations Darren Chaker has advanced training to connect the dots where issues arise related to Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, or Facebook, Instagram, and similar apps. When the dots need to be disconnected, Darren Chaker has extensive training in counter-forensic methods with an emphasis on network security, secure communications, combined with experience with implementing and deploying policy control, encryption, anonymization, data integrity, policy control features in large scale infrastructures. Additional training in malware analysis, Security Operating system security and hardening (Linux, Windows, Solaris), Firewalls, Intrusion detection systems, hacker, counter-hack methods, encryption, forensics, web application security is also employed for his client base. Since history is written by winners, let me write a bit: In 2005, Darren Chaker invalidated a California criminal statute aimed at suppressing speech. In Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215 C.A.9 (Cal.),2005, Cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1128, 126 S.Ct. 2023, is a case Darren Chaker personally handled and laid the ground work to allow appellate counsel to strike down a statute based on First Amendment rights. Subsequent to winning before the 9th Circuit, the State challenged the decision before the United States Supreme Court. Darren Chaker retained a former US Supreme Court Clerk and head of United States Supreme Court litigation for a major firm, Joshua Rosenkranz. The New York attorney defeated the State's petition to review the Ninth Circuit ruling causing multiple states to rewrite their own flawed statute since they were premised the California statute Darren Chaker struck down. Darren Chaker personally litigated Chaker v. Crogan for 7 of its 10-year lifespan. Darren Chaker’s victory invalidated a statute on First Amendment grounds and overruled the California Supreme Court‘s unanimous decision in People v. Stanistreet, 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 633. Soon after Chaker v. Crogan, it was also used to strike down Nevada's analogous statute forcing the legislature to rewrite the law, but also nullified a similar Washington statute as well. (De La O v. Arnold-Williams, 2006 WL 2781278) and used as the backbone authority in Gibson v. City of Kirkland, 2009 WL 564703, *2+ (W.D.Wash. Mar 03, 2009). The case has been cited hundreds of times and continues to be a leading authority on viewpoint discrimination. In 2010, Darren Chaker prevailed in Nathan Enterprises Corp. v. Chaker, 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 7604, through his counsel Timothy Coates who has prevailed multiple times before the United States Supreme Court. also prevailed for Darren Chaker where the Court of Appeal affirmed an anti-SLAPP ruling where the underlying conduct was found to have been within those protected by his First Amendment rights. In 2012 Darren Chaker prevailed on a First Amendment issue before the Texas Attorney where issued Opinion 2012-06088 where he established the right to obtain the names of peace officers regardless of undercover status. The Texas Attorney General opinion has been used as authority thousands of times by citizens and news agencies to learn more about Texas peace officers. In 2016, Darren Chaker was victorious in US v. Chaker (9th Cir. 2016) 654 F.App'x 891, 892. The ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, First Amendment Coalition, Cato Institute, and the University of Florida reversed a conviction premised on First Amendment rights where blog postings were at issue. In 2017, Darren Chaker prevailed in a RICO lawsuit aimed at suppressing speech filed by San Diego attorney Scott McMillan. In McMillan v. Chaker (S.D.Cal. Sep. 29, 2017, No. 16cv2186-WQH-MDD) 2017 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 163990 the court found by blogging did not constitute extortion as no demand for money to cease blogging was made. The judge found the case to be meritless, stating in part, “The Court concludes that these factual allegations are insufficient to establish that Defendant Darren Chaker obtained something of value from Plaintiffs…. The motion to dismiss the cause of action under 18 U.S.C.§ 1962(c) filed by Defendant Darren Chaker is granted.” In 2020, San Diego attorney Scott McMillan lost a heavily litigated appeal believing the court erred in dismissing his lawsuit against Darren Chaker. Mr. Chaker was represented by former Los Angeles federal judge Stephen Larson. The Ninth Circuit in McMillan v. Chaker (9th Cir. 2020) 791 F.App'x 666, affirmed the dismissal of a RICO lawsuit premised on alleged defamation of Scott McMillan. The court stated in part, “Plaintiffs failed to allege extortionate conduct because there are no allegations that Mr. Chaker obtained property from Plaintiffs that he could “exercise, transfer, or sell. ”See Scheidler, 537 U.S. at 405. Plaintiffs’ claim also fails because there are no allegations to support the “with [Plaintiffs’] consent” element. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 770 F.3d at 843.” In sum, Scott McMillan filed a lawsuit in direct conflict with established United States Supreme Court precedent and lost – twice. Also, in 2020, Darren Chaker was sued for defamation by Las Vegas attorney Thomas Michaelides. When Darren Chaker became aware of the lawsuit, he retained Olson, Cannon, Gormley, Angulo & Stoberski to defend him. Darren Chaker found a court order Mr. Michaelides submitted to Google that was reported to Several inconsistencies were noticed on the court order submitted to Google. Most notably the court docket does not show Mr. Michaelides submitted an order to the court for the judge’s signature. The court docket does not reflect the court ever signed the order Mr. Michaelides submitted to Google. Ultimately, the Nevada court dismissed the lawsuit and sanctioned Mr. Michaelides $51,000 for suing Darren Chaker for conduct within his First Amendment rights and for filing a meritless lawsuit. See forged order and judgment against Thomas Michaelides here. Darren Chaker donates time to post-conviction relief organizations to seal arrests and convictions to increase opportunity for those who were convicted of crimes, conducts research and brief writing on First Amendment issues, and also enjoys promoting non-profit organizations such as the ACLU and various domestic violence shelters through his resources within the entertainment industry, including Jason Statham and Eric Roberts. Darren Chaker also enjoys traveling, being a phenomenal father, and forwarding his education with post graduate degree work.

error: Content is protected !!