California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Arredondo, 199 Cal.Rptr.3d 563, 245 Cal.App.4th 186 (Cal. App. 2016):
We do not believe the rationale for these searches can be readily extended to the present context. A criminal defendant is explicitly told of, and agrees to accept, the conditions imposed upon his or her enjoyment of the privilege the state grants him by withholding the prescribed punishment for his offense.3 As discussed in greater detail below, no such actual notice or agreement can be found as to many drivers on California roads. We recognize that driving on the public ways has also been characterized as "a privilege subject to reasonable regulation, under the police power, in the interest of the public safety and welfare." (Watson v. Division of Motor Vehicles (1931) 212 Cal. 279, 283, 298 P. 481.) But the state's power to place conditions on the exercise of that privilege cannot justify constitutional intrusions of the same magnitude as those permitted in granting probation. After all, the alternative to probation is confinement in prison, a severe curtailment of numerous rights and liberties enjoyed by persons who have not been convicted of crimes. A
[245 Cal.App.4th 196]
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.