Chambers v. Municipal Court

California Court of Appeal Jan 14, 1977 No. Docket Nos. 36891, 38697Published

Before: Christian

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Penal Code section 416 is constitutional when narrowly construed to apply only to assemblies where there is probable cause to believe the purpose is unlawful or involves conduct that is violent or tends to incite violence. Consequently, the superior court erred in issuing writs of prohibition to restrain criminal prosecutions under the statute.

Issues

Whether Penal Code section 416 is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.
Whether a narrowing construction of Penal Code section 416 can preserve its constitutionality.
Whether applying a narrowed construction of the statute to past conduct violates ex post facto principles.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We construe Penal Code section 416 as empowering a public official to demand dispersal only where there is probable cause to believe that the purpose of an assembly is unlawful, according to the facts and circumstances of each individual case.”

65 Cal.App.3d 904 (1977) 135 Cal. Rptr. 695 CATHY CHAMBERS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE OAKLAND-PIEDMONT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest and Appellant. VALERIE ALMA LITTLETON et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents,

THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE OAKLAND-PIEDMONT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Docket Nos. 36891, 38697. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four.

January 14, 1977. [907] COUNSEL

Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Jack R. Winkler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Edward P. O'Brien, Assistant Attorney General, Derald E. Granberg, Clifford K. Thompson, Jr., and Martin S. Kaye, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

James C. Hooley, Public Defender, John M. Pace, Craig Goldman, Michael G. Millman and Robert H. Betzenderfer, Assistant Public Defenders, for Plaintiffs and Respondents.

Paul N. Halvonik, State Public Defender, Clifton R. Jeffers, Chief Assistant State Public Defender, and Philip A. Schnayerson, Deputy State Public Defender, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

CHRISTIAN, J.

The People have appealed from judgments for issuance of writs of prohibition restraining the municipal court (Oakland-Piedmont) from entertaining criminal proceedings against Cathy Chambers and Beverly Titus in one case and against Valerie Alma Littleton and Pamela Sheryl Gurske in the other case for allegedly violating Penal Code section 416 (refusal to disperse).

The superior court issued writs after respondents had in the municipal court demurred to the face of the criminal complaints against them. The circumstances surrounding their arrest and the attempted application of the statute by the police are not matters of record.

Chambers v. Municipal Court

AI Brief

OPINION

CHRISTIAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief