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.