California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Flores is that an electronics search condition for probation is constitutional and reasonable when the defendant used electronic devices as integral tools in the commission of the underlying offense, under circumstances where the defendant used internet-based platforms and VOIP technology to facilitate drug sales and conceal their identity.

Appeal from judgment after plea of no contest in Superior Court, Alameda County.

Defendant Appellant was Jeremy Manuel Flores — the drug dealer who used electronic devices and VOIP technology to coordinate fentanyl sales and obscure his identity.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecuting party seeking to uphold probation conditions.

The suit sounded in criminal charges for felony possession of fentanyl for sale and felony sale or offer to sell fentanyl.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Flores advertised fentanyl pills on craigslist.com, negotiated via text message with an undercover officer to sell 1,000 fentanyl pills for $2,400, used a VOIP phone number to hide his identity during negotiations, and was found in possession of approximately 991 fentanyl pills and the cell phone used for communications. Flores was on probation in Merced for a prior drug possession for sale conviction at the time of this offense.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court accepted Flores's no contest plea to felony possession of fentanyl for sale but added a fifth search condition for electronic devices (beyond the negotiated four-way search clause), ruling that the electronics search clause was directly related to Flores's criminal activity and future criminal activity based on his actual use of electronic devices to facilitate drug sales.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the electronics search condition is unconstitutionally overbroad and unreasonable as a probation condition. 2. Whether the electronics search condition should be struck or modified to limit its scope.

The Appellate Court held that the electronics search condition is constitutional and reasonable without modification because electronic devices were integral to the commission of the offense (using craigslist.com and VOIP to facilitate drug sales and hide identity), the condition is sufficiently tailored to the defendant's circumstances, and less restrictive means had proven insufficient given Flores's violation of prior probation terms.

The case is inapplicable when the defendant did not use electronic devices in the commission of the underlying offense, where there is no factual basis connecting electronic devices to the criminal activity, or where the probation condition would permit searches of electronic devices belonging to third parties or outside the defendant's control.

The case leaves open questions about the precise boundaries of what types of financial and medical records may be searched on electronic devices, the application of electronics search conditions to defendants without prior probation violations, and the scope of protection for hypothetical future technological devices not directly connected to criminal activity.