City of San Jose v. Garbett
190 Cal. App. 4th 526
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Garbett appeals multiple 527.8 workplace violence injunctions issued against him in San Jose, prohibiting violence or threats toward city employees and restricting his access to city hall and meetings.
- Petitions were filed August 5, 2008; interim restraining orders issued August 18, 2008; 14 injunctions ultimately issued May 4, 2009, with stay-away provisions and access restrictions.
- Garbett contends the injunctions violate his First Amendment rights and are not supported by credible-threat evidence and are overbroad.
- The City presented witnesses recounting Garbett’s confrontations, aggressive conduct, and fear generated among staff and security personnel.
- Experts Zarate (threat assessment) and Sancier provided opinion evidence about Garbett’s risk factors; trial court weighed credibility and found a credible threat and irreparable harm.
- The appellate court affirmed, ruling the statute permissibly restricts speech when a credible threat exists and the evidence supports future harm and need for injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 527.8 withstands First Amendment challenges | Garbett argues speech protections prohibit injunctions for protected expression. | City contends 527.8 targets credible threats, not protected speech, and allows injunctive relief. | Statute valid; credible-threat finding allows injunction despite First Amendment. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for a credible threat | Insufficient evidence that Garbett intended or made a credible threat. | Evidence shows a knowing, willful statement causing fear in reasonable persons. | Substantial evidence supports a credible threat finding under 527.8. |
| Future-harm and irreparable injury | No repeated threats; no likelihood of future violence. | Context and history show a realistic risk of future harm absent injunction. | Irreparable harm likely; likelihood of future harm supported by record. |
| Admission and weight of expert threat-assessment testimony | Zarate’s opinion merely notes a path toward violence, not actual likelihood. | Expert testimony is admissible and supports risk assessment and future danger. | Expert testimony properly admitted; evidence supports risk assessment and injunction. |
| Overbreadth and scope of injunction | Restrictions are overbroad, extending beyond proper protection of employees. | Scope reasonable to prevent harm, not punitive for past acts; includes measures at City Hall. | Appellate court upholds injunctions; limits are grounded in factual findings of credible threat. |
Key Cases Cited
- Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) (First Amendment protections are not absolute)
- Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 21 Cal.4th 121 (1999) (speech may be regulated when it constitutes a true threat)
- In re M.S., 10 Cal.4th 698 (1995) (intent elements where applicable; threats evaluated contextually)
- Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc., 129 Cal.App.4th 1228 (2005) (reasonable-speaker/true-threat reasoning in threat assessment)
- USS-Posco Industries v. Edwards, 111 Cal.App.4th 436 (2003) (evidence and credibility weighed for injunctions; relevant standards)
- Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. American Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2002) (objective standard for threat interpretation; true-threat doctrine)
- Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) (intent requirement for cross-burning statute; limits on threats)