X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 41 / 43

79 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

41 / 43

cannot be determined if it applies to a gang member being in the presence of someone in a bar or restaurant with an open container of an alcoholic beverage.  

Regarding justification for the alcohol prohibition, Investigator Villanueva explained that Broderick Boys gang members are often seen together in residential areas and “[f]requently, they are seen drinking alcohol or using narcotics in open view.”  Villanueva further explained “Broderick Boys will often congregate near the banks of the Sacramento River to drink alcohol or use narcotics in public view.”  According to Villanueva, this has been used by the Broderick Boys to create or reinforce public intimidation.  

Defendants’ claim of vagueness stems from the following comment by plaintiff’s counsel during argument:  “This provision is tempered.  There are limitations even in the provision that we’ve submitted to the court, where if the individual is in their own home, somebody else’s home, in a bar, in a restaurant, the provision simply does not apply to them.  What this is attempting to do is prohibit the alcohol consumption and possession out in public . . . .”  

Defendants argue the foregoing interpretation of the alcohol provision appears to contradict the plain language of the provision.  The provision prohibits being in the presence of an open container “[a]nywhere in public view or anyplace accessible to the public.”  A bar or restaurant would appear to be a place in public view or accessible to the public.  Defendants argue that if plaintiff himself cannot determine what

41

Document info
Document views79
Page views79
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 08:18:57 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments