People v. Conrad

California Court of Appeal
64 Cal. Rptr. 2d 248, 55 Cal. App. 2d 896, 55 Cal.App.4th 896 (1997)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A non-party to an injunction who has knowledge of its terms can be held in contempt for its violation only if there is evidence of an actual relationship demonstrating they acted "in concert with" or "for" the enjoined parties. Merely sharing a "mutuality of purpose" or engaging in the same prohibited conduct is insufficient to establish liability.

Facts:

A court issued an injunction against Christine Williams and Solano Citizens for Life, prohibiting them from picketing on the sidewalk directly in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Vallejo.
The injunction also applied to the enjoined parties' agents and anyone "acting at the direction of or in combination or in concert with" them.
Cheryl Conrad and other appellants, who were not named in the injunction, traveled to the Vallejo clinic as part of an Operation Rescue event called "Summer of Missions."
A flyer for the event specifically mentioned the Vallejo injunction and stated that activities were planned to ignore injunctions that violated First Amendment rights.
On June 10, 1994, appellants Jeffrey White and Johnny Schwab picketed on the clinic's sidewalk, and White stated they were there to "test the injunction."
Norman Reece, a party named in the injunction, observed the June 10 protest from his van across the street.
On July 11, 1994, the appellants again picketed on the clinic's sidewalk.
During the July 11 protest, when Norman Reece drove by, appellant Michael Ross frantically waved him away at the suggestion of appellant White, who wanted to minimize contact with an enjoined party.

Procedural Posture:

Cheryl Conrad and eight other abortion protesters were arrested and charged with misdemeanor disobedience of a lawful court order.
The case was tried in a California trial court in a bench trial (a trial by judge, without a jury).
The trial judge denied the protesters' motion for acquittal.
The trial judge found all nine appellants guilty of the charges.
The convicted protesters (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.

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 a non-party act "in concert" with an enjoined party, thereby becoming subject to an injunction, merely by having knowledge of the injunction and engaging in the same prohibited conduct with a shared purpose, without evidence of an actual relationship or coordination with the enjoined party?

Opinions:

Majority - Walker, J.

No. A non-party is subject to an injunction's contempt power only when, with knowledge of the injunction, the non-party violates its terms with or for those who are restrained; mere mutuality of purpose is insufficient. The court reasoned that injunctions are not effective against the world at large and are tailored remedies imposed on specific parties who have abused their rights. Extending an injunction to anyone with a shared purpose would be an overbroad restriction on constitutional rights and lacks the safeguards of general laws. The "in concert" language is intended to prevent enjoined parties from nullifying a court order by using non-parties as agents or collaborators. Therefore, an actual relationship between the non-party and the enjoined party must be proven. In this case, the only evidence of interaction—one appellant waving away an enjoined party to avoid association—was too insubstantial to prove the appellants acted "with or for" the enjoined parties.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the legal standard for holding a non-party in contempt for violating an injunction under an "acting in concert" clause. By rejecting a broad "mutuality of purpose" test and requiring proof of an "actual relationship," the court protects the free speech and association rights of independent actors. This precedent prevents injunctions, which are targeted judicial remedies, from being improperly used as general laws to suppress dissent from anyone who shares the ideology of an enjoined party. It forces prosecutors to prove a concrete connection, such as agency or direct collaboration, before a non-party can be bound by a court order.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People v. Conrad (1997)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"