X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 33 / 43

108 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

33 / 43

We fail to follow plaintiff’s logic.  Even if the words “Without a prescription,” applies to all three clauses of paragraph (1)(e), this would not change the nature of the prohibition.  The second clause prohibits gang members from knowingly remaining in the presence of anyone selling, possessing, or using any controlled substance or related paraphernalia.  Does application of the “Without a prescription” language mean the gang member does not have a prescription or the person with the controlled substance does not have a prescription?  Either way, this prohibition would prohibit the gang member from being in any store where prescription drugs are sold.  Similarly, the third clause prohibits gang members from being in the presence of controlled substances without a prescription.  This again would prohibit gang members from entering stores where prescription drugs are sold.  

In Totten, the injunction prohibited gang members from “‘possessing controlled substances without a prescription.’”  (Totten, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 37.)  In Englebrecht, the injunction prohibited gang members from “‘[p]articipating in the use, possession and/or sale of narcotics’” and “‘[b]eing present in a vehicle found to have any . . . narcotics . . . with knowledge of . . . narcotics . . . .’”  (Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1243-1244, fn. 2.)  Neither provision would have prohibited gang members from entering stores where controlled substances are sold or being in the presence of a family member who is in possession of a controlled substance with a prescription.  

33

Document info
Document views108
Page views108
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 08:13:10 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments