## Facts

- A district attorney brought a civil action to abate a public nuisance allegedly created by a street gang in a defined Oceanside neighborhood.
- The complaint alleged a pattern of violent crimes, drug activity, intimidation of residents, obstruction of passage, loud disturbances, graffiti, and trespasses that interfered with residents’ use and enjoyment of property.
- The superior court issued a preliminary injunction against named gang defendants and Does, including:
  - a nonassociation term barring defendants from appearing in public view with other defendants or “known” gang members, and
  - a term barring use or possession of pagers/beepers in any public place.
- A police detective observed the petitioner with other alleged gang members in public view and also found him with a pager.
- The trial court adjudged petitioner in criminal contempt for violating both the nonassociation and pager provisions and ordered jail time.
- Petitioner sought habeas relief challenging the injunction terms and the contempt adjudications.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged gang-related conduct could be enjoined as a public nuisance under California nuisance statutes and Code of Civil Procedure authority permitting abatement actions.
2. Whether a preliminary-injunction term prohibiting public association with other defendants or “known” gang members violated constitutional associational rights or was overbroad or vague.
3. Whether a blanket ban on using or possessing pagers/beepers in any public place was constitutionally valid and sufficiently tailored to nuisance abatement.
4. Whether the evidence and procedures supporting the criminal contempt findings satisfied due process, including proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the knowledge component for “known” gang members.

## Decision

- The court granted habeas relief in part and denied it in part.
- It held the district attorney had authority to seek a civil injunction to abate a public nuisance arising from gang activity that affected an entire neighborhood and obstructed property use and enjoyment.
- It upheld the nonassociation provision as constitutional when construed to require knowledge or notice of the other person’s gang status.
- It invalidated the pager/beeper provision as unconstitutional because it broadly prohibited lawful conduct and was not narrowly tailored.
- It affirmed the contempt finding based on the nonassociation violation.
- It set aside the contempt finding based on the pager/beeper provision because contempt cannot rest on an invalid injunction term.

## Legal Principles

- Conduct that interferes with a community’s comfortable enjoyment of life or property and affects a neighborhood may constitute a public nuisance subject to civil abatement.
- Civil injunctions may impose limits on association when justified by a compelling governmental interest and tailored by geography, the persons covered, and the targeted nuisance-related conduct.
- An injunction term is vulnerable to overbreadth if it bans a neutral tool with substantial lawful uses without tying the restriction to unlawful or nuisance-related activity.
- Criminal contempt requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and procedures consistent with due process.
- A contempt adjudication cannot stand when it is predicated on an unconstitutional or invalid injunction provision.

## Conclusion

The court approved use of a civil public-nuisance injunction to curb gang-related neighborhood harms and sustained a knowledge-based nonassociation restriction, but struck a blanket pager/beeper ban as overbroad and vacated the contempt finding based on that invalid term while leaving the nonassociation-based contempt intact.


In re Englebrecht, 67 Cal. App. 4th 486, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 89 (Ct. App. 1998)