City of San Jose v. Garbett
118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 420, 190 Cal.App.4th 526, 2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 2003 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California's Workplace Violence Safety Act (§ 527.8), a "credible threat of violence" is determined by an objective standard of whether a reasonable person would fear for their safety, not by the speaker's subjective intent to threaten. Such threats fall outside the protection of the First Amendment.
Facts:
- William Garbett was a frequent attendee at San Jose city hall meetings and was known for his negative and antagonistic attitude towards the city government.
- On March 5, 2008, after his application to run for city council was disqualified for having insufficient signatures, Garbett met with deputy city clerk Nora Pimentel and told her conspiratorial stories about city police landing helicopters on his roof.
- On May 28, 2008, Garbett returned to Pimentel's office, became agitated, and asked, "What does somebody have to do to change policy around here? Do you have to be—take matters into your own hands like the Black man in Missouri?"
- Garbett's question referred to Charles Thornton, who had shot and killed five people at a Kirkwood, Missouri city hall meeting less than four months earlier after having long-standing grievances with that city.
- When Pimentel asked Garbett if he was making a threat, he denied it.
- Shortly thereafter, Garbett told the mayor's bodyguard, Ted Trujillo, that the Missouri shooter, Charles Thornton, was a "good friend of his" and that he had spoken to Thornton a month before the shooting.
- Garbett had a documented history of hostile encounters with city employees, including physically lunging at a police officer, telling a city analyst he had a "six-foot plot picked out" for him, and referencing mass murderers like Timothy McVeigh.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of San Jose filed petitions in the Santa Clara County Superior Court seeking injunctions against William Garbett on behalf of 12 employees, including the mayor, city council, and city clerk Nora Pimentel.
- The superior court issued temporary restraining orders against Garbett.
- Following a multi-day hearing, the superior court found that Garbett had made a credible threat of violence and issued 14 permanent injunctions restricting his conduct.
- William Garbett (appellant) appealed the superior court's issuance of the injunctions to the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District. The City of San Jose is the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual's statement referencing a recent mass shooting at a city hall, made to a city employee in a hostile context, constitute a 'credible threat of violence' under California Code of Civil Procedure § 527.8, thereby falling outside First Amendment protection?
Opinions:
Majority - Elia, J.
Yes, an individual's statement referencing a recent mass shooting at a city hall, made to a city employee in a hostile context, constitutes a 'credible threat of violence' under § 527.8. The court held that such threats are not constitutionally protected speech. The First Amendment does not protect 'true threats.' An injunction issued under § 527.8 is appropriate if the statutory elements are met. The statute defines a 'credible threat of violence' by an objective standard: a 'knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for his or her safety.' The court noted that the legislature amended the statute to remove the requirement of the speaker's subjective intent to threaten. Therefore, Garbett's denial that he intended a threat is irrelevant. The proper standard is whether a reasonable person would foresee the statement being interpreted as a serious expression of intent to harm. Given the context—including Garbett's history of animosity, his agitated state, and his later claim of friendship with the shooter—Pimentel's fear was reasonable. The evidence of Garbett's past violent and erratic behavior also supported the trial court's finding that there was a probability of future harm, justifying the injunction.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies that the legal standard for a 'credible threat' under California's workplace violence statute is objective, focusing on the effect of the speech on a reasonable person, not the speaker's professed intent. This interpretation lowers the evidentiary burden for employers seeking injunctions, as proving an individual's subjective state of mind is often difficult. The ruling emphasizes the importance of context, holding that a speaker's history of hostile behavior can transform an otherwise ambiguous statement into an unprotected true threat. This precedent strengthens protections for employees by allowing courts to intervene based on patterns of escalating menacing conduct, even before an explicit threat or act of violence occurs.
