The ACLU filed an amicus brief on behalf of petitioner Barbaro Escobedo Arias as well as several other wards of the Youth Authority (YA) at the Karl Holton School, Northern California Youth Center. The case concerns the question of whether the installation of surveillance equipment (specifically bugging) in the chapel complex of the Youth Authority facility violates the religious freedom and privacy rights of the youths who reside there. The case also questions whether the microphones violate the clergy-penitent communications privilege and whether they would have a "chilling effect" on the expression of religion, or on the private conversations between wards and the chaplain. Arias had participated in programs offered by the chapel, which included "(1) worship, (2) music and art, (3) bible studies, (4) prayers and auricular confessions, (5) individual spiritual counselling, and (6) group counselling."

The monitoring devices in question are those placed in the chapel during a 1982 measure to improve security at the facility. Ronald R. Lowry, chief of the YA Facilities Planning Bureau, explained the purpose of the surveillance devices in an affidavit. He explained that a decibel-level threshhold is set for each channel, and that a warning light would become illuminated when the volume exceeded that threshhold. The warning light would then activate the control room speaker, which would allow those in the room to listen to the sounds in the specified location. The determination of the threshhold levels is left to the discretion of control room personnel. The YA argued that "the electronic sound surveillance in the chapel is the means least intrusive of religious exercise."

The court disagreed. While acknowledging that "[i]nstitutional security and the protection of staff in penal institutions are a paramount consideration [,]" the court writes that "the record discloses no effort by the YA to design a security system that could accommodate the special privacy needs of wards' religious practices." They also write that "the record shows no effort by the YA to explore security options other than beepers and sound monitoring—measures which might be less intrusive upon religious practices within the chapel." They conclude that the presence of the microphones in the chapel, do, in fact, violate the rights of the petitioners.