People v. Nixon

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment involving a postrelease supervision condition that prohibited the defendant from creating, using, or accessing social media websites. The court held that the condition was sufficiently precise to satisfy constitutional vagueness standards and was not overbroad because it was closely related to the defendant’s use of social media to make criminal threats. Although the defendant had been discharged from supervision, the court addressed the merits because the issue was likely to recur while evading review.

Holdings

1. The court may exercise its discretion to decide a technically moot appeal when the challenged issue is of broad continuing public interest, likely to recur, and likely to evade review; the court therefore declined to dismiss the appeal.
2. The condition defining social media as any internet website allowing users to post words or images accessible to the public or other users was sufficiently precise to notify defendant of the prohibited conduct and to permit a court to determine whether the condition had been violated.
3. The complete prohibition on defendant's creation, use, and access of social-media accounts and websites was not unconstitutionally overbroad because, although it burdened First Amendment rights, it was closely fitted and reasonably necessary to the state's compelling interest in reforming and rehabilitating defendant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot after defendant's discharge from postrelease supervision.
2. Whether the social-media condition was unconstitutionally vague because its definition did not sufficiently identify the websites defendant could not use or access.
3. Whether the social-media condition was unconstitutionally overbroad because it burdened First Amendment rights without being carefully tailored to the state's interest in reformation and rehabilitation.

Disposition

affirmed