People v. Sanchez
F071330
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- A 2009 Stanislaus County permanent gang injunction (DSSN) was entered by default against the gang and certain named individuals; it created a Safety Zone in Modesto and broadly restricted movement, association, dress, and other conduct.
- The Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office (SCDA) thereafter served copies of that injunction on additional persons it unilaterally designated as covered "active" gang members; enforcement was managed by a single investigator.
- Carlos David Sanchez was not named or served in the original 2009 proceeding and was a minor at that time; he was served with the injunction in August 2010.
- Sanchez was arrested and charged with misdemeanor criminal contempt for alleged violations of the injunction (association/curfew/wearing red). He moved to dismiss, arguing enforcement against him without predeprivation process violated procedural due process.
- The trial court applied the Mathews balancing test (in light of Vasquez v. Rackauckas) and concluded Sanchez had a protected liberty interest and was entitled to predeprivation process; because none was provided, the court dismissed the contempt charge.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: applying the injunction to Sanchez under the circumstances violated procedural due process, so service on him had no effect and contempt prosecution could not stand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether application of the gang injunction to an unserved person interferes with protected liberty interests | Enforcement is lawful to abate gang nuisance; injunction terms validly restrict conduct in Safety Zone | Injunction’s broad prohibitions (movement, association, speech) infringe liberty interests | Court: injunction’s terms and enforcement implicated constitutionally protected liberties (movement, association, speech) |
| Whether due process required predeprivation process before serving/enforcing the injunction on persons not named/served in the original proceeding | No predeprivation process required; postdeprivation criminal contempt process (trial) is adequate | Service without notice/opportunity to be heard denied procedural due process; Mathews requires predeprivation process here | Court: Mathews balancing favors predeprivation process; SCDA’s unilateral procedure posed high risk of error; predeprivation safeguards required |
| Whether a jury trial/postdeprivation remedies cure any procedural defect | Postdeprivation criminal contempt proceedings provide adequate remedy | Postdeprivation process is insufficient because injunction is permanent, broadly restrictive, and arrest/booking occur before adjudication | Court: postdeprivation remedies inadequate to cure deprivation; additional predeprivation safeguards necessary |
| Remedy for due process violation (effect of invalid service) | Contempt prosecution should proceed; failure to give extra briefing below was permissible; dismissal was error | Service was invalid as-applied; contempt charge must be dismissed because injunction could not be applied to Sanchez without prior process | Court: service on Sanchez was invalid for due process reasons and contempt count properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez v. Rackauckas, 734 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir.) (gang injunction enforcement against unprotected individuals requires some adequate process; Mathews framework applied)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-factor balancing test for procedural due process)
- People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 14 Cal.4th 1090 (Cal. 1997) (civil nuisance/Gang injunctions under general public nuisance statutes)
- People v. Engelbrecht, 88 Cal.App.4th 1236 (Cal. Ct. App.) (standard and burden for civil gang-injunction inclusion; active membership defined)
- People ex rel. Totten v. Colonia Chiques, 156 Cal.App.4th 31 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussion of limits and membership issues in gang injunctions)