State Of Washington, V. I.g.g., 81657-8

On June 18, 2020, Isaac Garcia Gutierrez pleaded guilty in juvenile court to unlawful possession of a firearm (second degree) and unlawful display of a weapon; he received 141 days confinement and 12 months community supervision.
The trial court imposed three community-custody “Gang Condition Appendix” restrictions over his objection: (1) no public wearing/possession/display of clothing, jewelry, tattoos, or other items showing gang membership or promoting affiliation; (2) no public verbal or nonverbal communication conveying gang membership, promoting gang activity, or soliciting membership; (3) no association with any gang members, except family in non-gang activities or during required treatment/education.
Garcia appealed, arguing the conditions are unconstitutionally vague; the State conceded the first condition was vague but defended the remainder.
The Court of Appeals reviewed constitutional issues de novo and noted heightened clarity is required where First Amendment rights may be chilled.
Applying Washington precedent (including Weatherwax and related federal decisions), the court held the gang conditions were too broad because they did not identify a specific gang or reference statutory definitions of “criminal street gang” or “gang member.”
The court reversed and remanded to strike the gang-related conditions (construing the conditions to require knowing violations as a matter of mens rea).

Issue	Garcia's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Are the forbidden-wear/display restrictions unconstitutionally vague?	Too broad and vague; ordinary person cannot know what items "show evidence" of gang membership.	Conceded this condition was vague.	Reversed as unconstitutionally vague.
Is the prohibition on conveying gang membership (verbal/nonverbal) void for vagueness?	Vague without identifying specific gangs or statutory definition; chills protected expression.	Condition is crime-related and enforceable as written.	Reversed — too broad without reference to specific gangs or statutory definitions.
Is the association ban with "any gang members" unconstitutionally vague?	Unclear who counts as a "gang member" absent statutory reference or specific identified gang; can encompass noncriminal groups.	Enforceable as a crime-related condition.	Reversed — association limits must be tied to identified gangs or statutory definitions of gang/member.

State v. Sanchez Valencia, 169 Wn.2d 782 (Wash. 2011) (standard for reviewing community custody conditions and unconstitutionality)
State v. Weatherwax, 193 Wn. App. 667 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016) (struck broad gang-related conditions; limits must reference identified gangs or statutory definitions)
State v. Padilla, 190 Wn.2d 672 (Wash. 2018) (vagueness test for community custody conditions)
State v. Bahl, 164 Wn.2d 739 (Wash. 2008) (heightened clarity required where First Amendment implicated)
United States v. Soltero, 510 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2007) (upheld associational ban when specific gang identified)
United States v. Johnson, 626 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2010) (associational restriction upheld with specific gang identification)
United States v. Green, 618 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2010) (struck overly broad clothing/tattoo prohibition; upheld narrower associational ban tied to statute)
United States v. Vega, 545 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2008) (construing gang-association prohibitions to require knowing conduct)