What makes a special condition of parole unlawful or invalid?

Yes. A parole condition is invalid if it fails any one of the following four legal tests:

TEST 1: A parole condition is invalid if:

    It has no relation to the commitment offense; AND
    It bars conduct that is not in itself criminal; AND
    It requires or forbids conduct that is not reasonably related to future criminal conduct or activities.[462]

For this test, you must show that the condition is invalid based on all three of these factors.

For example: Courts have held that if a parolee has no history of alcohol abuse or committing crimes while intoxicated, alcohol testing cannot be imposed as a condition of parole because using alcohol (1) is unrelated to the parolee’s past criminal conduct, (2) is not illegal in itself, and (3) is not reasonably related to the parolee’s risk of future criminality.[463]

TEST 2: A parole condition is invalid if:

    It infringes on (violates) a constitutional right, AND
    It is broader than necessary to promote public safety or rehabilitation.[464]

TEST 3: A parole condition may be invalid if it is excessively broad or so vague that you cannot understand or follow it.[465]

For example: If a parole condition prohibits you from associating with members of a certain group, then to be valid, it must include a requirement that you actually know (or should know) whether the people you’re associating with are members of the prohibited group.[466]

TEST 4: A parole condition is invalid if it limits the type of employment you can have, and this limitation does not directly relate to your crime.[467]

For example: If you were previously convicted for bouncing a check, a parole condition that forbids you from becoming a salesperson would be invalid.[468]

  1. 462

    People v. Lent, 15 Cal. 3d 481, 486 (1975); People v. Dominguez, 256 Cal. App. 2d 623, 627 (1967). Many of the relevant cases deal with probation conditions, to which courts usually apply the same analysis as to parole conditions. See also People v. Petty, 213 Cal. App. 4th 154 (2013) (condition requiring parolee to take psychiatric drugs invalid where no connection between mental health condition and criminality); People v. Brandao, 210 Cal. App. 4th 568 (2012) (prohibition on associating with gang members must have connection to parolee’s criminality); People v. Olguin, 45 Cal. 4th 375 (2008) (condition requiring notification of all pets in home valid to protect supervising officer’s safety during home visits). ↑

  2. 463

    People v. Kidoo, 225 Cal. App. 3d 922 (1990), overruled on other grounds in People v. Welch, 5 Cal. 4th 228 (1993). ↑

  3. 464

    People v. Smith, 152 Cal. App. 4th 1245, 1250 (2007). ↑

  4. 465

    People v. Fritchey, 2 Cal. App. 4th 829, 838 (1992); U.S. v. Bonanno, 452 F. Supp. 743, 752 (N.D. Cal. 1978). See also People v. Bauer, 211 Cal. App. 3d 937 (1989) (condition not to become pregnant); People v. Pointer, 151 Cal. App. 3d 1128, 1139 (1984) (forbidding living with parents); People v. Beach, 147 Cal. App. 3d 612, 622-623 (1983) (banishing from home); In re Sheena K., 116 Cal. App. 4th 436 (2004) (not associating with anyone disapproved by officer); People v. O’Neil, 165 Cal. App. 4th 1351 (2008) (same); Hyland v. Procunier, 311 F. Supp. 749 (N.D. Cal. 1970) (condition to get permission before making speech); Arciniega v. Freeman, 404 U.S. 4, 92 S. Ct. 22 (1971) (not associating with ex-convicts at work); People v. Garcia, 19 Cal. App. 4th 97, 101-102 (1993) (not associating knowingly or unknowingly with ex-felons or drug users); In re Justin S., 93 Cal. App. 4th 811 (2001) (not associating with “any gang members”); In re Stevens, 119 Cal. App. 4th 1228 (2004) (prohibiting use of computers or Internet when neither used in committing crime); U.S. v. Williams, 356 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2004) (requiring release to take medications); In re H.C., 175 Cal. App. 4th 1067 (2009) (not frequenting areas of gang activity); U.S. v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858, 867 (9th Cir. 2007) (not associating with members of “disruptive groups”); U.S. v. Wolf Chold, 699 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir 2012) (condition not to live with or be in company of minor under 18 or socialize with minor children). ↑

  5. 466

    People v. Turner, 155 Cal. App. 4th 1432 (2007). ↑

  6. 467

    See People v. Burden, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1277 (1988); People v. Lewis., 77 Cal. App. 3d 455 (1978); People v. Keefer, 35 Cal. App. 156 (1972). ↑

  7. 468

    See People v. Burden, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1277 (1988). ↑