1DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2025/12/22 - Dec 22, 2025

argument

1DCA Division 3 Oral Argument - 2025/12/22

California First District Court of Appeal 2h 12m 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural issues are addressed at the start of the oral argument?

Unknown 0:10

Good morning, welcome, and please be seated. Welcome to Oral Argument in Division 3. You see that with me on the bench this morning is my colleague Justice Rodriguez. Justice Petrou would be here. She's actually on all four cases today, but we learned this morning that she is ill. So I understand that council have agreed to waive her presence. I will ask you on the record when I call your case to confirm that that's true, and I will not take your matter under submission at the end of the oral argument as I normally do. I will instead reserve that until Justice Petra has had an opportunity to watch the video of the arguments that are taking place today, which I don't expect will be too many days from now, but we'll let you know.

Unknown 1:07

All right, with that, I'm going to call line one, the matter of In Re JG versus, oh, okay, In Re JG, excuse me, People versus JG, and I think this is a remote argument. Yes, good, we have both counsel here. May I have appearances, please?

Laura Vavikin 1:23

Laura Vavikin on behalf of Appellant, Justin G.

Lindsay Thompson 1:28

Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court, Deputy Attorney General Lindsay Thompson for the People and Respondent.

Unknown 1:34

All right, good morning to both of you. In this case, we did send you a tentative opinion. The matter is on for 10 minutes. Ms. Vavikin, would you like to reserve some of your time for rebuttal?

Laura Vavikin 1:46

Three minutes, please.

Unknown 1:47

Okay, we'll try to help you keep track of time. And the microphone is yours.

Laura Vavikin 1:52

Thank you. The court's tentative opinion concludes that Detective Badger's actions were merely negligent rather than purposeful disregard of the electronic search conditions. Appellant respectfully submits that this conclusion misapplies the objective reasonableness standard required for the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. First, Detective Badger's actions were not merely negligent. It is appellant's position that the record demonstrates Detective Badger's, this sounds like a tongue twister, actions went beyond mere negligence and constituted purposeful disregard of the clear language limiting class code access to probation officers. Court acknowledged the line in the snippet from the Juvenet document that was admitted as an exhibit and was viewed by Badger containing the electronic search condition explicitly stated that appellant must provide the probation officer, probation officer,

Laura Vavikin 2:52

any passwords, access codes, et cetera. This language unambiguously conveyed to Badger that he had no authority to demand appellant's password. Badger admitted that he knew the term stated that only probation had the authority to demand the passwords. He also admitted-

Unknown 3:10

I'm sorry. Where do you see his admission that he knew at the time that he was doing this search that only probation had the authority to demand passwords?

Laura Vavikin 3:24

I believe his testimony was that, well, I don't think, and maybe I could clarify this, but I don't think he ever testified that when he was looking at it, that he had any particular belief. When he testified, he was asked, Based on what you see right here and what you were viewing on the day of, does it say that law enforcement has the authority to demand passwords? And he admitted that it didn't.

Unknown 3:52

I see, but that's a very different thing from what you said. Can I just ask one point of clarification? Do I understand that you are locating the fault entirely on the law enforcement officer? You're not faulting the court for the minutes that didn't? completely set out uh what was orally ordered and you're not faulting juvenet for not calling out the distinction as to who got which authority well

Laura Vavikin 4:22

i think what would if it was first of all just backing up the court never made a finding that the minutes were incorrect and so i've My understanding then is that only probation was to have the authority to demand those passcodes. But now when we move to what Juvenet says, the court never made any finding also that that was incorrect, except that it did say, you're on notice now, law enforcement DA's office, which I think the implication there is that the court believes that whatever is in Juvenet does not comport with whatever he said on the record.