333 W Santa Clara St. #1060, San Jose, California, 95113, where the Sixth District Court of Appeal is located. (Photo: Google)

A juvenile who used sexually explicit photos and videos of his ex-girlfriend, a minor, to extort money from her will have to turn over the login information for all of his electronic devices to a probation department after an appeals court ruling.

California's Sixth District Court of Appeal upheld an order Jan. 24 from Santa Clara County Superior Court requiring warrantless searches of the high-school-aged offender's devices as a condition of his probation stemming from his conviction for possession of child pornography and sexual blackmail. On appeal, the minor argued that the order was unconstitutional and overbroad.

The appeals court, however, found the searches "appropriately tailored."

"Minor stored the illegal photographs and videos on his cellular phone, and he used that phone to send text messages demanding money while implicitly threatening to share the 'pics and videos' with others if Jane Doe did not comply," wrote Associate Justice Adrienne Grover in an opinion joined by Administrative Presiding Justice Mary Greenwood and Associate Justice Eugene Premo. "In the context of this case, access to minor's electronic devices is critical to monitor his progress on probation and to ensure that he is not continuing to engage in the sort of criminal conduct that led to him being declared a ward of the court."

The minor's court-appointed attorney, Heather Shallenberger of Truckee, California, did not respond to a request for comment.

In addition to threatening to distribute the photos around the teens' high school, he used the content to blackmail Jane Doe into having sex with another boy, who also recorded the encounter, according to the opinion.

The appeals court had originally affirmed the lower court's opinion mandating the warrantless searches, but the California Supreme Court kicked the case back to the court following its decision In re Ricardo P. The August ruling found warrantless searches of 17-year-old Ricardo P.'s devices overbroad since the juvenile court relied on the fact that the boy said his decision to burglarize was influenced by his use of marijuana, and "minors typically will brag about their marijuana usage or drug usage, particularly their marijuana usage, by posting on the internet, showing pictures of themselves with paraphernalia, or smoking marijuana." The appellant in the case decided Jan. 24 had argued that his probation was similarly overbroad.

But again, the court emphasized the use of an electronic device in the minor's crimes, ruling that "the rationale of Ricardo P. does not apply here because the offense Ricardo committed did not involve the use of an electronic device, whereas an electronic device was integral to minor's adjudication."

The minor also asserted that the scope of electronic devices probation officers could search is also overbroad, arguing it could apply to "a digital television; video game console, both hand-held and stationary; and something as innocuous as a Kindle Fire or DVD player merely because the device was in [minor's] control," according to the decision.

The court, however, found that if the searches were limited to certain devices, the defendant could maneuver around the condition by using unlisted devices for blackmail or child pornography.

"As drafted, the condition is directed at preventing minor from engaging in the very conduct that brought him under the court's supervision, while providing probation officers with flexibility in dealing with technological capabilities," Grover wrote.

The boy invoked the privacy rights of third parties in his appeal, as well. He posited that the probation officers would be violating the privacy of social media users he's connected with if he were to turn over the passwords for his accounts.

The justices decided that he could simply notify third parties that the content they share with him could be subject to searches, and regardless, he does not have the standing to assert the constitutional rights of third parties.

When asked for comment, a representative said the attorney general's office is reviewing the decision.