In re L.B. CA1/4

── In re L.B. CA1/4 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 In re L.B. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR In re L.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, A174314 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Contra Costa County v. Super. Ct. No. J2500027) L.B., Defendant and Appellant. In this juvenile wardship proceeding, defendant L.B. entered a no contest plea to an allegation of misdemeanor grand theft, and the juvenile court ordered that she be placed on probation for one year. On appeal, L.B. challenges two of the probation conditions, arguing (1) a condition requiring her to submit to search and seizure at any time is unreasonable under People v. Lent (1975) 15 Cal.3d 481 (Lent); and (2) a condition requiring her to follow orders from her probation officer is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and improperly delegates authority to the probation officer to set conditions of probation. 1  We reject L.B.’s challenge to the search condition. We will direct that the condition pertaining to probation officer orders be modified, and we will affirm the juvenile court’s order as modified. I. BACKGROUND In January 2025, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a juvenile wardship petition under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 602, subdivision (a), alleging L.B. committed felony grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a); allegation 1) and organized retail theft (id., § 490.4; allegation 2). The probation report describes the events underlying these allegations. On November 25, 2024, L.B., who was then 17 years old, and two women were arrested for allegedly taking beauty products worth about $1,000 from an Ulta Beauty store in San Ramon. Earlier in the day, L.B. and the two women were in an Ulta Beauty store in Livermore and allegedly attempted to steal some items but dropped the merchandise before leaving the store. At the San Ramon store, according to the manager, L.B. and the two women took items, walked out of the store, and fled in a car. Police responded and followed the car but gave up the chase for safety reasons after the fleeing car accelerated through red lights. After returning to the San Ramon store, police were informed by staff that one of the stolen items contained a GPS tracking device. Using the tracking device, police located and stopped the car. The stolen items were in the car, on the floor of the front passenger seat and on the right floorboard in the back seat. L.B. was the passenger in the back seat. Police arrested L.B. and the two women. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2  On July 18, 2025, pursuant to a negotiated agreement, the first allegation in the petition (grand theft) was reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a); see id., § 489, subd. (c)(1)); L.B. entered a no contest plea as to that amended allegation; and the court dismissed the organized retail theft allegation. Moving to disposition, the juvenile court adjudged L.B. to be a ward of the court and placed her on probation for one year. The court imposed several conditions of probation, including a search con