Title: In re Ricardo P.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S230923M
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: August 29, 2019

1 
Filed 8/28/19 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  
CALIFORNIA 
 
In re RICARDO P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court  
Law. 
 
 
THE PEOPLE,  
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
v. 
RICARDO P., 
Defendant and Appellant. 
 
S230923 
 
First Appellate District, Division One 
A144149 
 
Alameda County Superior Court 
SJ14023676 
 
 
ORDER MODIFYING OPINIONS  
 
THE COURT: 
 
The majority opinion in this case, filed on August 15, 2019, is 
modified as follows:   
1. 
The second complete sentence in the first paragraph on page 
7 of the slip opinion presently provides:  “We hold that the condition 
does not satisfy Lent’s third prong because, on the record before us, the 
 
 
2 
burden it imposes on Ricardo’s privacy is substantially disproportionate 
to the countervailing interests of furthering his rehabilitation and 
protecting society.”   
This sentence is modified to provide as follows:  
“We hold that the condition satisfies Lent’s third prong and is 
therefore invalid under the Lent test because, on the record before us, 
the burden it imposes on Ricardo’s privacy is substantially 
disproportionate to the countervailing interests of furthering his 
rehabilitation and protecting society.” 
 
 
2. 
The first complete sentence in the first paragraph on page 8 
of the slip opinion presently provides:  “But even accepting these 
premises, we conclude that the electronics search condition here does 
not satisfy Lent’s third prong because the burden it imposes on 
Ricardo’s privacy is substantially disproportionate to the condition’s 
goal of monitoring and deterring drug use.”   
 
This sentence is modified to provide as follows:   
 
“But even accepting these premises, we conclude that the 
electronics search condition here satisfies Lent’s third prong, such that 
the condition is invalid under Lent, because the burden it imposes on 
Ricardo’s privacy is substantially disproportionate to the condition’s 
goal of monitoring and deterring drug use.”   
 
These modifications do not affect the judgment. 
 
 
 
3 
The concurring and dissenting opinion in this case, filed on 
August 15, 2019, is modified as follows: 
1.  
The first sentence in the first paragraph on page 9 of the 
concurring and dissenting slip opinion presently provides:  “Lent’s third 
prong is satisfied here.”   
 
This sentence is modified to provide as follows:   
 
“The electronics search condition before us fails Lent’s third prong 
because the condition has a reasonable relationship to Ricardo’s 
reformation and rehabilitation.”   
 
2.  
The first complete sentence in the first paragraph on page 
15 of the concurring and dissenting slip opinion presently provides:  “It 
concludes that the electronics search condition here ‘does not satisfy 
Lent’s third prong because, on the record before us, the burden it 
imposes on Ricardo’s privacy is substantially disproportionate to the 
countervailing interests of furthering his rehabilitation and protecting 
society.’ ”   
 
This sentence is modified to provide as follows:   
 
“It concludes that the electronics search condition here ‘satisfies 
Lent’s third prong and is therefore invalid under the Lent test because, 
on the record before us, the burden it imposes on Ricardo’s privacy is 
substantially disproportionate to the countervailing interests of 
furthering his rehabilitation and protecting society.’ ”