In re William R.
Appellant challenges the decision of the juvenile court sustaining a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition against him on the grounds the trial court improperly denied his suppression motion and imposed unconstitutionally vague and overbroad probation conditions. Court's original opinion in this case concluded that the juvenile court properly denied the suppression motion and that appellants probation conditions required the addition of an element of knowledge to eliminate vagueness. The Supreme Court granted respondents and appellants petitions for review. After deciding In re Jaime P. (2006) 40 Cal.4th 128 (Jaime P.) and In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875 (Sheena K.), the Supreme Court remanded this case with a direction to reconsider our decision in light of Jaime P. and Sheena K.
Applying Jaime P., we conclude the trial court erred by denying appellants motion to suppress. Appellants contention regarding his probation conditions is therefore moot.
Comments on In re William R.