California v. Valdivia
Annotate this CaseIn this domestic abuse case, defendant Jose Valdivia challenged a condition of his probation authorizing the warrantless search of electronic storage devices (such as cellular phones and computers) under his control. He argued the condition must be stricken because it: (1) “is unreasonable under [People v.] Lent [(1975) 15 Cal.3d 481], as it bears no relationship to [his] current offense or potential future criminality”; and (2) “is unconstitutional under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution because [his] privacy and privilege against self[-] incrimination far outweigh the State’s purported and unproven rehabilitation and societal protection interests.” Additionally, Valdivia argued the condition infringed on the privacy interests of third parties. The Court of Appeal found no merit in defendant’s arguments that the electronic storage device search condition was unreasonable under Lent, nor under the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, defendant’s attempt to raise the privacy interests of third parties was barred by forfeiture. The Court of Appeal agreed, however, that on the facts of this case, the electronic storage device search condition was unconstitutionally overbroad because its potential impact on his Fourth Amendment rights exceeded what was reasonably necessary to serve the government’s legitimate interest in ensuring that he complied with the terms of his probation. The case was remanded to the trial court to consider in the first instance whether the condition can be narrowed in a manner that will allow it to pass constitutional muster.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.