888.909.7896

PROBATION CONDITIONS ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF PETS

1
Jan

In an ordinary case (this is possession of meth), can the court require probationers to notify probation which pets they currently have and of any change in their pet status? The majority says that pets can be dangerous to probation officers, or might bark or quack or something
and warn probationers that the probation officer is coming, so the probationers can destroy all that illegal stuff they always have around.
There’s a dissent from Kennard and Moreno, apparently the only justices with any common sense. The dissent points out that the majority treats all pets as dangerous:
“Falling within that reach would be Jaws the goldfish, Tweety the canary, and Hank the hamster, hardly
the kinds of pets one would expect to strike fear in a probation
officer.”

I guess they don’t know some of the probation officers we know. You have to wonder about the judgment of the court in granting review and expending resources on this subject, while at the same time the court is trying to transfer death penalty appeals to the Court of Appeal because
they are so overwhelmed.
People v. Olguin; 2008 DJ DAR 18850; DJ, 12/30/08; Cal. Supremes

close