X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 29 / 43

75 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

29 / 43

active gang members, they would not only be prohibited from appearing any place in public together but they would also be prohibited from traveling inside the [S]afety [Z]one together even when they are engaged in a wholly innocent and legal activity such as driving, walking or taking a bus to church or to school.”  

“An injunction may not burden the constitutional right of association more than is necessary to serve the significant governmental issue at stake.  ([Acuna], supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 1115, 1120-1122.)  The Constitution shields from government intrusion a limited right of association.  One such protected association--not asserted here--is instrumental to forms of political and religious expression and activity.  The others--asserted here--are associations with ‘intrinsic’ or ‘intimate’ value.  These are ‘exemplified by personal affiliations that “attend the creation and sustenance of a family--marriage . . . ; the raising and education of children [citation]; and cohabitation with one’s relatives.”  [Citation.]’  ([Acuna], supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 1110.)”  (Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1262.)  

In Englebrecht, the gang injunction prohibited members from:  “‘Standing, sitting, walking, driving, bicycling, or gathering anywhere in public view with any other defendant herein, or with any other known Posole gang member.  This prohibition shall not apply to named defendants living in the target area on November 25, 1997, who are father and sons/daughters, mothers/sons/daughters.’”  (Englebrecht, supra, 88

29

Document info
Document views75
Page views75
Page last viewedTue Nov 29 04:52:35 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments