California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Appleton, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 637, 245 Cal.App.4th 717 (Cal. App. 2016):
It is not necessary to require an express scienter element where the concern is that the probationer might unwittingly violate an unambiguously worded condition. (People v. Contreras (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 868, 887, 188 Cal.Rptr.3d 698.) We think the best approach is for courts to incorporate an express knowledge requirement only when necessary to address an inherently vague category of conduct. (Ibid. ) Since there is nothing inherently vague or ambiguous about requiring defendant not to delete his browser history, we perceive no need for an express scienter requirement. Accordingly, we need not modify this probation condition at this time.
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.