Filed 8/27/25 P. v. Harley CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRACY SCOTT HARLEY, Defendant and Appellant. |
A171063 (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 22CR000532) |
|---|
Tracy Scott Harley appeals from an order imposing an electronic search condition as part of his probation. We conclude Harley’s appeal must be dismissed as moot.
Memorandum Opinion1
The Napa County District Attorney filed an information charging Harley with carrying a loaded firearm (Pen. Code,2 § 25850, subd. (c)(6); count 1), possessing a concealed firearm within a vehicle (§ 25400, subd. (a)(1); count 2), possessing a concealed firearm within a vehicle in which the person is an occupant (§ 25400, subd. (a)(3); count 3), selling and transporting marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360, subd. (a)(2); count 4), and possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359, subd. (b); count 5). Harley pled guilty to all charges.
The court initially granted Harley’s request for a Transitional Age Youth (TAY) diversion. As a condition of diversion, Harley was required to undergo drug testing; he admitted testing positive for cocaine and THC.
Due to the positive drug testing, the court terminated diversion and imposed one year of formal probation. Probation included the following warrantless electronic search condition: “Submit all electronic devices under your control to search and seizure by any probation or law enforcement officer at any time of the day or night with or without a search warrant, arrest warrant, or reasonable suspicion. You shall also disclose any and all passwords, passcodes, password patterns, fingerprints, or other information required to gain access into any of the aforementioned devices or social media accounts as requested by any probation or law enforcement officer. Contraband seized by a probation or law enforcement officer shall be disposed of, stored or returned at the discretion of the probation or law enforcement officer.”
On appeal, Harley raises a single challenge. He contends the electronic search condition of his probation is unconstitutionally overbroad and violates his Fourth Amendment and privacy rights. He therefore requests the condition be stricken.
The Attorney General responds that the appeal is now moot because Harley’s probation has ended, and this court cannot provide effective relief. In lieu of a reply, Harley’s counsel sent a letter confirming probation has terminated and that, therefore, no reply brief would be filed.
We find the appeal is moot. Because Harley is no longer on probation and subject to the electronic search condition, we cannot grant him effective relief. (People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1120, fn. 5 [expiration of probation moots a challenge to a condition of probation]; In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 611 [appeal moot “because appellant has served his term of confinement and his probation has been terminated”]; In re N.S. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 53, 58–59 [“An appellate court will dismiss an appeal when an event occurs that renders it impossible for the court to grant effective relief.”].) Nor does this case fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine as the record does not suggest an issue of ongoing material significance, a matter of broad public interest likely to recur, or a controversy apt to arise again between these parties. (In re N.S., at p. 59.)
Because Harley’s probation has ended and no exception to mootness applies, we must dismiss the appeal.
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
Petrou, J.
WE CONCUR:
Fujisaki, Acting P. J.
Rodríguez, J.
A171063 / People v. Harley