California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. J.R. (In re J.R.), A147835 (Cal. App. 2017):
7. "The rapid changes and innovations in technology, particularly those involving tablet computers, smart phones, digital cameras, and other electronic devices, as well as the 'apps' or applications created for such devices, make it difficult to formulate a condition that encompasses all of the possible devices that could be used to monitor law enforcement and probation activities. . . . Rather than attempt to list every type of prohibited electronic devicea list that may well be outdated by the time this opinion is filedwe believe the . . . problem presented by the [probation] condition is better addressed by listing . . . examples of prohibited items, and then describing the functions of the prohibited items or devices the trial court sought to curtail . . . . [T]hese vagueness and overbreadth concerns may be addressed by 'incorporating a requirement that the probationer know the association, place, or item falls within the prohibited category.' [Citation.]" (People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, 888.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.