Simon v. City and County of San Francisco

Background

On February 13, 2024, the court certified a revised-rules subclass consisting of individuals who had been, were, or would be subject to the revised version of the program rules adopted after changes made in May 2023. The court also issued a preliminary injunction. As relevant here, the injunction barred the City and County of San Francisco, Paul Miyamoto in his official capacity as San Francisco Sheriff, and specified persons acting for or with them from imposing or enforcing a search condition broader than the one stated in each subclass member’s Superior Court order. It also barred enforcement of the program’s data-sharing provision, but the motion addressed the search-condition provision.

Defendants appealed part of the preliminary injunction concerning data sharing. They did not seek appellate review of the portion concerning search conditions.

Plaintiffs’ Motion

Plaintiffs moved to enforce the injunction, arguing that defendants were requiring a warrantless-search condition for electronic monitoring even when the Superior Court had not imposed that condition or had indicated that it was not warranted in the individual case.

Court’s Analysis

The court found two forms of noncompliance.

First, the Sheriff’s Office refused to release individuals on electronic monitoring when judges had declined to impose a warrantless-search condition. Although defendants pointed to ambiguity in some minute orders, the court found that transcripts and written orders showed in the cited cases that the judges had not ordered the condition. The record also showed that the Sheriff’s Office refused to release at least some individuals despite knowing that a judge had not imposed the condition. The court called this a clear violation of the injunction.

Second, in some cases judges imposed the warrantless-search condition but stated that they would not have done so based on the facts of the case if the Sheriff’s Office had not required it as a condition of participation in electronic monitoring. The court said this conduct violated the spirit of the injunction because it reproduced the conduct that had formed the basis for the original preliminary injunction: the Sheriff’s Office imposed the condition as a blanket requirement, leaving no meaningful opportunity for individualized judicial review.

The court rejected defendants’ argument that it needed to modify the injunction before enforcing it. It stated that courts may enforce their orders while an appeal is pending and that this enforcement order preserved the status quo, did not materially alter the case on appeal, and did not address the conditions defendants had appealed. The court also stated that defendants had acted at their peril if they believed the injunction was unclear but did not seek clarification.

Disposition

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the preliminary injunction and found that defendants had been violating the injunction’s prohibition on imposing or enforcing a search condition broader than the condition in each subclass member’s Superior Court order.

The court declined to issue an order to show cause requiring defendants to explain why they should not be held in contempt. It stated that defendants had clear notice that the conduct described in the order violated the injunction and that plaintiffs could renew a request for contempt proceedings or seek other appropriate relief if violations continued.

The court also declined to order defendants to file plaintiffs’ proposed report identifying people released by the Superior Court for electronic monitoring without a search condition whom defendants nevertheless detained. The court noted that plaintiffs could seek that information through discovery. Finally, it ordered the City and County of San Francisco to serve the order on San Francisco Superior Court judges and file proof of service by October 3, 2024.