NEW: (# Failure to Register Technicality
NEW: Failure to Register a Sex Offense???
CAUTION: SORNA EFFECTIVE even if state has not enacted it
Plea Bargains: Santabello v New York
Forced to Carry Gov't Message Issue: See HERE
Blog also contains "Unfavorable" and "Informational" decisions and relevant news articles. All can be useful in framing arguments for new court actions. (i.e., avoid pitfalls or inform courts.) Or refuting charges, check facts of cases v yours.
Leagle is our main court decision resource.
Find State decisions by the Federal Circuit a State is in.

CAUTION: Decisions are meant to be educational.
For "Personal Life Decisions" consult with a lawyer.

People v Rebulloza

3-2-15 California:

People v Rebulloza

Defendant Juan Jose Rebulloza pleaded no contest to one count of indecent exposure for exposing himself on a street corner in San José. The trial court granted a three-year term of probation to include one year in county jail as a condition of probation.

Among other conditions, the court ordered defendant to complete a sex offender management program as mandated by Penal Code section 1203.067. Under subdivisions (b)(3) and (b)(4) of that statute, the court ordered defendant to “waive any privilege against self-incrimination and participate in polygraph examinations which shall be part of the sex offender management program” and “waive any psychotherapist/patient privilege to enable communication between the sex offender management professional and the probation officer.

Defendant challenges the constitutionality of these two waivers.1
First, we hold that the condition requiring a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment under Minnesota v. Murphy (1984) 465 U.S. 420 (Murphy).

Second, we construe the waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege as requiring waiver only insofar as necessary to enable communication between the probation officer and the psychotherapist.
We hold that the waiver of the psychotherapist-patient privilege as construed in this fashion is not overbroad in violation of defendant’s constitutional right to privacy.


No comments: