Defendant Christopher James Kenney’s mother (“C.K.”) decided one day in January 2021 that it was time to exercise a little “tough love” with her 29-year-old druggie son and 86 the bum out of the house. The idea was that once he was made homeless, defendant might voluntarily move into a residential drug rehab treatment facility. (Fat chance.)  

     To enforce the eviction, C.K. obtained a temporary domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”), although defendant (not being present) was not aware of this at the time. Pending a hearing scheduled for 15 days later, the court ordered absent defendant to “take only personal clothing and belongings needed until the (pending) hearing and move out immediately.” In an accompanying order, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department was directed to “remove” defendant from the residence.  

     Upon C.K. telling defendant to leave, he did so on Jan. 6. But two days later, defendant returned. C.K. asked him “What are you doing here?” She also told him: “You know you could be arrested.” Showing his disrespect for his mother by telling her “F—k you,” and that he’d leave after taking a shower, he stomped off to his bedroom. Having to drive her grandson to school, C.K. told defendant, “That’s not how restraining orders work,” and that they would talk about it when she returned. However, C.K. had a live-in boyfriend who was not as patient. Before C.K. returned, the boyfriend called the sheriff’s department to report the presence of “a disorderly druggie” who was “loaded to the gills” and “not supposed to be on the property.” He told the dispatcher there was a “restraining order out” but that “it hasn’t been served” and “he’s here for you to get him right now.”  

     By the time C.K. returned, the deputies were already at her house. She gave them a copy of the temporary DVRO. The deputies first checked with their records division to confirm its existence. (The DVRO’s legal validity was not an issue in this case.) C.K. told the deputies that defendant had not yet been served with it. As evidenced by the bodycams worn by the deputies, one of the deputies at the scene, Deputy Evan Maldonado, knocked on defendant’s locked bedroom door and told him through the door that he would not be arrested, but that they had a temporary DVRO that they needed to serve on him. Defendant refused to open the door.  

     Deputy Maldonado, and his partner Deputy Brett Germain explained that there was a restraining order on file that prevented him from being in the house. Defendant questioned the validity of any order that sought to prevent him from being in his own home. The deputies attempted to convince him that “as of right now” he was not going to be arrested, but that they needed to serve the order on him.  

     Defendant’s not-unexpected response (still through the locked bedroom door) was that, “(t)his was bull s—t” and “f—k you guys.” The deputies continued to try to reason with defendant, telling him to come out and “talk about it,” and submit to being served with the order so that he “can get going.” Defendant continued to argue that he was in his own home and that the deputies would have to break down the door.  

     Using a piece of flexible plastic, the deputies were able to get the door open (albeit with some effort) and -- after a scuffle -- arrested the defendant. He was charged in state court with resisting an executive officer with force, per P.C. § 69. He was convicted of the lesser offense of resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer in the performance of his or her duties, per P.C. § 148(a). The defendant appealed.