Probation and Sex Offenders
California Supreme Court Upholds and “Interprets” Chelsea’s Law
Chelsea’s Law is a California statute that significantly increased penalties for sex offenders. The law, which became effective in 2010, covered, among other things, sentencing, parole, and internet postings. It was passed in response to the rape and murder that same year of Chelsea King, a San Diego high school student, by a convicted sex offender.
Some provisions of the law were recently the subject of a challenge in the California Supreme Court. Ignacio Garcia pleaded guilty in 2013 to committing lewd acts against a child. At the time of the offense, he was 16 years old. Police say that he molested his younger nephew. Garcia was sentenced to three years’ probation, and he appealed, challenging the constitutionality of two of the terms of his probation:
- The first challenge involved a provision in the law that says the person on probation gives up his or her right against self-incrimination. This meant that Garcia could not refuse to answer questions from his probation officer, and required him to submit to lie detector tests, even if he would otherwise be able to claim protection under the Fifth Amendment. The court got around the constitutional challenge by ruling that any statements obtained could not be used against Garcia in a criminal proceeding.
- The second aspect of Garcia’s appeal related to the provision that required him to give up his right to confidentiality in any statements he made to his psychotherapist. The court interpreted this to mean that there could be “limited communication” between the psychotherapist and the probation officer about the rehabilitation of the probationer (Garcia). The rationale of this portion of the ruling, according to the Supreme Court, is that the state has a strong interest in obtaining the information so that it can understand the situation of the person on probation and protect public safety.
We’re not entirely sure that the ruling, particularly the aspect involving the psychotherapist/patient privilege (Evidence Code Sections 1010 – 1027), is illuminating. It may be that it will simply lead to more appeals for clarification. Finally, while we don’t want to justify or minimize sex crimes, we would point out one thing: The purported rationale for violating the psychotherapist/patient privilege in this case could be applied to a myriad of situations to justify infringing on a person’s rights, constitutional or otherwise.
Law Office of David P. Shapiro
3500 5th Avenue, Suite 304,
San Diego, CA 92103
(619) 295-3555
Author Bio
David P. Shapiro, the managing partner and founder of a leading San Diego criminal defense firm, is driven by an unwavering commitment to providing the best possible representation to his clients facing criminal charges. With a deep understanding of the fear, uncertainty, and concern for one’s future that his clients experience, David approaches each case with empathy and dedication, advocating tirelessly for their rights and freedoms.
Focused on complex and high-stakes cases, David handles a wide range of serious charges, including felonies, violent crimes, sex crimes, drug offenses, and white-collar crimes. Since establishing his practice in 2010, David has earned a reputation as one of San Diego’s most respected criminal defense attorneys.
His firm has been recognized by LawFirm500 as one of the nation’s fastest-growing law firms and was a 2022 Better Business Bureau Torch Award for Ethics Winner. The San Diego Business Journal named David’s firm the 17th Fastest Growing Private Company in San Diego from 2019-2021 and recognized David as one of San Diego’s 500 Most Influential People in 2022. With a strong dedication to his clients and community, David continues to be a driving force in the San Diego legal landscape.
Recent Posts
PRACTICE AREAS
Facing Criminal Charges in San Diego?
Here’s what you need to know to regain control of your future
