Source: https://rhdefense.com/a-rainbow-of-gangs
Timestamp: 2020-04-05 03:58:44
Document Index: 140088084

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 186', '§ 186', '§ 186', '§ 186', '§ 1', '§ 186', '§ 186', '§ 186', '§ 186', '§ 186', '§ 186', '§ 186', '§ 1', '§ 186', '§ 186']

A Rainbow of Gangs | Fresno Criminal Lawyer
After the guy dies and the five gang members are arrested, other people come forward to talk about how they, too, had been assaulted by the Bird Rock Bandits. 1)Scott Bass, “Bird Rock Bandits Case: Preliminary Hearing Decision This Week” (Unknown Date) Surfer Magazine.
Accusations include throwing punches that break facial bones, requiring surgery; intimidating people with violence and threatening to kill them; accosting beachgoers; crashing parties in a chartered bus, beating up guests and even hitting young women who get in their way. 2)Caitlin Rother, “Bird Rock Bandits” (May 15, 2008) In Cold Blog.
Sounds like their primary activities are assaults by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury, 3)See Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(e)(1). threats to commit crimes resulting in death or great bodily injury as defined in Section 422, 4)See Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(e)(24). — at the very least. As if that wasn’t enough,
A gang expert told a judge Tuesday that members of the so-called Bird Rock Bandits had the same gang colors as the Hell’s Angels and wanted to associate with the infamous motorcycle gang. 5)“Gang Expert: Men Wanted Hell’s Angels Connection” (May 20, 2008) NBCSanDiego.com.
Apparently, the gang was also known to throw signs. 6)See Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(f). Looks like we’ve got a common name, sign or symbol going here.
One expert witness, an investigator for the San Diego District Attorney’s office, said the Bird Rock Bandits showed all the characteristics of a gang including claiming a territory, displaying hand signals, the use of gang defining colors, and most importantly, ongoing criminal activity as a group. 7)Scott Bass, “Bird Rock Bandits Case: Preliminary Hearing Decision This Week” (Unknown Date) Surfer Magazine.
So how come Judge Einhorn decided on May 22, 2008 that these five did not constitute a criminal street gang? 8)Did I say “five”? See Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(f): “…any ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons…”
San Diego Superior Court Judge John S. Einhorn said the group known as the Bird Rock Bandits doesn’t fit the definition of a gang under state law. 9)Dana Littlefield, “Judge: Bird Rock group doesn’t fit gang definition” (May 23, 2008) SignOnSanDiego.com.
As one of my new favorite sources for the law noted, this is a fairly broad definition that could theoretically cover Enron officials. 10)Scott Bass, “Bird Rock Bandits Case: Preliminary Hearing Decision This Week” (Unknown Date) Surfer Magazine. Well, maybe.
Though members of the Los Angeles Police Department may commit an enumerated offense while on duty, the commission of crime is not a primary activity of the department. Section 186.22 . . . requires that one of the primary activities of the group or association itself be the commission of [specified] crime[s]. . . . Similarly, environmental activists or any other group engaged in civil disobedience could not be considered a criminal street gang under the statutory definition unless one of the primary activities of the group was the commission of one of the [25] enumerated crimes found within the statute. 11)People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 323-324 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 851].
Step by step, this court [the California Supreme Court] continues its struggle through the thicket of statutory construction issues presented by the California Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act of 1988, also known as the STEP Act. 12)People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 319 [109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 851]. The Court itself cited the extensive trail through the thicket by citing the following: Stats. 1988, ch. 1242, § 1, pp. 4127-4129, see People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th. 1106 [99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 120, 5 P.3d 176]; People v. Castenada (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 743 [97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 906, 3 P.3d 278]; People v. Zermeno (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 927 [89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 863, 986 P.2d 196]; People v. Loeun (1997) 17 Cal. 4th 1 [69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 776, 947 P.2d 1313]; People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 605 [59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 356, 927 P.2d 713].
Were it not for the difficulties in interpreting the STEP Act, the California Supreme Court would not have to struggle step by step through a thicket of statutory construction issues to provide interpretations so that persons of ordinary intelligence would no longer have to speculate about the meaning of its terms, particularly when, as in each case cited by the California Supreme Court in Sengpadychith, 13)People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 319 [109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 851]. the California Supreme Court’s interpretation comes too late to enable such persons to modify their behavior and avoid the loss of liberty. California’s repeated assertions that this is not a problem does not change that fact; the “thicket of statutory construction” continues to need pruning, shaping and trimming right up to the present, just as has been necessary for the last decade. This is evidence that the act is overly vague and requires everyone – until the California Supreme Court re-alters the legal landscape each time – “to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes [specifically, the meaning of the STEP Act].” 14)People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna,14 Cal.4th at p. 1115.
The California Supreme Court held in Gardeley, that the enumerated crimes under § 186.22(e), utilized to determine both whether a group is a “criminal street gang” and whether that criminal street gang has engaged in “a pattern of criminal behavior,” did not need to be gang-related. 15)Gardeley, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 624, fn.10 The Second Appellate District carried that a step further: the crimes that determine if the gang is a criminal street gang and that the gang has engaged in a pattern of criminal behavior do not have to be committed by gang members! 16)People v. Augborne (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 362, 371 [128 Cal.Rptr.2d 258].
Particularly when thinking of behavior, ordinary parlance and the view of persons of ordinary intelligence is that a pattern requires more than one event. 17)See Ensor, CIA agent fired for ‘pattern of behavior’, CNN.com (April 25, 2006) found at http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/24/cia.firing/ (last visited January 14, 2007). The STEP Act originally required, among other things, “a pattern of criminal activity.” 18)Cal.Pen.Code § 186.22(f). There were temporal qualifiers which might serve to help with the characterization of the activity as demonstrating a “pattern.” 19)Cal.Pen.Code § 186.22(e). Yet the statute also contains the phrase “or by two or more persons” from which the Court in Loeun found that a “pattern” could be established by whatever crimes the District Attorney decided were criminal street gang crimes; that is, the actual charged crimes in any given case could also be used to establish the pattern of criminal activity. 20)People v. Loeun (1997) 17 Cal.4th 1, 5 [69 Cal.Rptr.2d 776].
Acts on one occasion, therefore, can show a criminal street gang’s “pattern” of behavior. From this, you can see the fallacy of stating that the Bird Rock Bandits are not gang members under this law. They’re not gang members because the court said they’re not. That’s all. They’re too white and/or too rich to be gang members. Under the law itself, different charges against Seth Cravens, 22; Eric House, 21; Orlando Osuna, 23; Matthew Yanke, 21; and Henri “Hank” Hendricks, 22, could easily total up to more than “two or more persons.” Boom! You’ve got your gang, along with it’s “predicate” crimes to establish the pattern. 21)In Gardeley, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 609, fn.1, the California Supreme Court said, “We use the term ‘predicate offenses’ throughout this opinion to describe the component crimes that constitute the statutorily required ‘pattern of criminal gang activity.’ We agree with the following observation by the Court of Appeal in People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1383, footnote 13 [37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 596], as to using the term ‘predicate offenses’ to describe the crimes that establish a ‘pattern of criminal gang activity’: ‘While the statute does not use the word “predicate” it has become the accepted usage for reference to the statutorily required offenses. This is unfortunate since it implies precedence, which . . . is not a requirement, but it seems too well entrenched in the case law to change now.'”
Except for one thing: “Though members of the Los Angeles Police Department may commit an enumerated offense while on duty, the commission of crime, is not a primary activity of the department.” 22)People v. Gamez (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 957, 970-971 [286 Cal.Rptr. 894]. But only because the Gamez Court said so. 23)Ibid.
1, 7, 10. ↑ Scott Bass, “Bird Rock Bandits Case: Preliminary Hearing Decision This Week” (Unknown Date) Surfer Magazine.
2. ↑ Caitlin Rother, “Bird Rock Bandits” (May 15, 2008) In Cold Blog.
3. ↑ See Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(e)(1).
4. ↑ See Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(e)(24).
5. ↑ “Gang Expert: Men Wanted Hell’s Angels Connection” (May 20, 2008) NBCSanDiego.com.
6. ↑ See Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(f). Looks like we’ve got a common name, sign or symbol going here.
8. ↑ Did I say “five”? See Cal. Penal Code § 186.22(f): “…any ongoing organization, association, or group of three or more persons…”
9. ↑ Dana Littlefield, “Judge: Bird Rock group doesn’t fit gang definition” (May 23, 2008) SignOnSanDiego.com.
11. ↑ People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 323-324 [109 Cal.Rptr.2d 851].
12. ↑ People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 319 [109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 851]. The Court itself cited the extensive trail through the thicket by citing the following: Stats. 1988, ch. 1242, § 1, pp. 4127-4129, see People v. Robles (2000) 23 Cal.4th. 1106 [99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 120, 5 P.3d 176]; People v. Castenada (2000) 23 Cal. 4th 743 [97 Cal. Rptr. 2d 906, 3 P.3d 278]; People v. Zermeno (1999) 21 Cal. 4th 927 [89 Cal. Rptr. 2d 863, 986 P.2d 196]; People v. Loeun (1997) 17 Cal. 4th 1 [69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 776, 947 P.2d 1313]; People v. Gardeley (1996) 14 Cal. 4th 605 [59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 356, 927 P.2d 713].
13. ↑ People v. Sengpadychith (2001) 26 Cal.4th 316, 319 [109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 851].
14. ↑ People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna,14 Cal.4th at p. 1115.
15. ↑ Gardeley, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 624, fn.10
16. ↑ People v. Augborne (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 362, 371 [128 Cal.Rptr.2d 258].
17. ↑ See Ensor, CIA agent fired for ‘pattern of behavior’, CNN.com (April 25, 2006) found at http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/24/cia.firing/ (last visited January 14, 2007).
18. ↑ Cal.Pen.Code § 186.22(f).
19. ↑ Cal.Pen.Code § 186.22(e).
20. ↑ People v. Loeun (1997) 17 Cal.4th 1, 5 [69 Cal.Rptr.2d 776].
21. ↑ In Gardeley, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 609, fn.1, the California Supreme Court said, “We use the term ‘predicate offenses’ throughout this opinion to describe the component crimes that constitute the statutorily required ‘pattern of criminal gang activity.’ We agree with the following observation by the Court of Appeal in People v. Olguin (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1383, footnote 13 [37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 596], as to using the term ‘predicate offenses’ to describe the crimes that establish a ‘pattern of criminal gang activity’: ‘While the statute does not use the word “predicate” it has become the accepted usage for reference to the statutorily required offenses. This is unfortunate since it implies precedence, which . . . is not a requirement, but it seems too well entrenched in the case law to change now.'”
22. ↑ People v. Gamez (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 957, 970-971 [286 Cal.Rptr. 894].
Home » Criminal Defense Blog » Gangs » A Rainbow of Gangs