X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 37 / 43

88 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

37 / 43

In Totten, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at page 47, the gang injunction prohibited members from “‘[b]eing outside [in the Safety Zone] between the hours of 10:00 p.m. on any day and sunrise the following day, unless (1) going to or from a legitimate meeting or entertainment activity (specifically excluding activities where other gang members are present); (2) actively engaged in some business, trade, profession or occupation which requires such presence (including directly driving to or from work); or (3) involved in a legitimate emergency situation that requires immediate attention.’”  

The Court of Appeal found this provision unconstitutionally vague.  First, the court found the provision vague in failing to define “outside.”  The court questioned:  “Does this mean that a gang member is in violation of the injunction, and subject to arrest, if he or she is sitting in the open air on the front porch of his or her residence, or if he or she is standing on his or her own front lawn, or if he or she is at a late night barbecue in the backyard?  Is a gang member ‘outside’ if he or she is sitting inside a vehicle parked on the street?  Is a gang member in violation of the injunction if he or she is present at a ‘legitimate meeting or entertainment activity’ that occurs ‘outside’ in the open air?”  (Totten, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 48.)  

The court also found the provision unconstitutionally vague in failing to define the “meeting or entertainment activity” exception to the curfew provision.  (Totten, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 49.)  Regarding the word “meeting,” the court

37

Document info
Document views88
Page views88
Page last viewedTue Dec 06 09:53:23 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments