Licensed professional, business owner, federal plaintiff — jailed for speaking publicly about family court corruption in San Diego County.
View the full San Diego patternLast updated: May 20, 2026
A licensed professional and established business owner, not a flight risk or threat to anyone
Currently held at Las Colinas on two misdemeanor charges
| Case # | Code | Description | Class | Bail |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S318401DV | PC 166(A)(4) | Contempt: Disobey Court Order | MISD | $0 |
| 26CM002710S | PC 166(C)(1) | Contempt: Violate Protective Order | MISD | $10,000 |
Both charges are misdemeanors. Under the California Supreme Court's April 30, 2026 ruling in In re Kowalczyk, pretrial detention is categorically prohibited for misdemeanor offenses.
State custody case and attorney malpractice lawsuit
Dina attempted to remove her state criminal case to federal court on civil rights grounds (Nature of Suit: Civil Rights, 440). She was denied at every level. Every federal avenue has been exhausted.
Dina Sarkisova (also known as Dina Haines) has been fighting for custody of her son in San Diego family court (DN168909, Judge Powazek) against Marvin P. Haines. She sued her own attorneys for malpractice. She became a public advocate for family court reform, speaking about corruption among San Diego family court lawyers.
When the state brought criminal charges — contempt for speaking publicly — she attempted to remove the case to federal court on civil rights grounds. The district court remanded it in two days. She appealed to the 9th Circuit (dismissed), then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court (denied).
She exhausted every federal avenue available. District court, appeals court, Supreme Court. All denied. The state proceedings continued, and she was jailed.
Dina is a UCSD-educated, licensed professional with a 17-year career and 5.0/5.0 client ratings. She owns a successful business in Mission Valley. She speaks English and Russian. She has won the San Diego A-List three times. She is not a flight risk. She is not a danger to anyone. She is a mother who spoke out about a court system that took her son — and the system jailed her for it.
Dina Sarkisova spoke from inside Las Colinas Detention Facility about due process breakdowns, unclear court orders, questionable warrants, and the impossibility of defending herself while detained. The Karis Project specifically covers mothers losing custody to broken family court systems.
A woman jailed for speaking — speaking from jail. This interview is evidence of continued First Amendment retaliation: she is detained, yet still being recorded exercising her right to speak.
In re Kowalczyk, S277910 (Cal. Supreme Court, April 30, 2026)
Unanimous decision by Chief Justice Guerrero. The court held that Article I, Section 12 of the California Constitution defines the exclusive circumstances under which bail may be denied: (1) capital crimes, (2) felony offenses involving violence or sexual assault, and (3) felonies involving threats of great bodily harm. Misdemeanors are categorically excluded. Courts cannot use "artificially high or objectively unattainable bail as an end run to effectuate pretrial detention where such detention is not authorized." Public defender offices statewide are now filing motions to release individuals under this ruling.
Full opinion: courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S277910.PDF
First Amendment Precedent: Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252 (1941)
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned contempt convictions for criticizing judicial proceedings, establishing that the First and Fourteenth Amendments limit a court's power to punish for contempt based on speech. Contempt punishment for speech is only constitutional if it creates a "clear and present danger" to the administration of justice. Extended by Pennekamp v. Florida (1946) and Craig v. Harney (1947) — even unfair criticism of a judge does not justify contempt unless it poses a clear and present danger.
PC 166(A)(4) — Contempt: Willful Disobedience of Court Order
"Every person guilty of any contempt of court, of the following kinds, is guilty of a misdemeanor: ... (4) Willful disobedience of the terms as written of a process or court order..."
Always a misdemeanor. Cannot be elevated to a felony. Maximum: 6 months county jail, $1,000 fine. Requires proof the defendant knew about the order, had the ability to follow it, and willfully disobeyed. Typical bail: $300-$30,000 depending on county. Bail is never denied for this charge.
PC 166(C)(1) — Contempt: Violation of Protective Order
"A willful and knowing violation of a protective order or stay-away court order... shall constitute contempt of court, a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year..."
Misdemeanor on first offense. Maximum: 1 year county jail, $1,000 fine ($2,000 if injury). Can become a "wobbler" (felony possible) only on second+ offense within 7 years involving violence or credible threat of violence. Typical bail: $5,000-$30,000. Bail is set, not denied.
Bottom line: Both charges are misdemeanors with standard bail. Under In re Kowalczyk, pretrial detention is categorically prohibited for misdemeanors. Dina's continued detention appears to violate the California Constitution as interpreted by the state's highest court.
If you are an attorney, journalist, elected official, or advocate — call the number above and tell ARAYA you want to help with the Sarkisova case. You will be connected.
Dina needs commissary funds for phone calls, hygiene, and food while detained.
DINA SARKISOVA
Las Colinas Detention and Reentry Facility
451 Riverview Parkway, Santee, CA 92071
Go to accesscorrections.com and search for Las Colinas.
Commissary funds allow detained individuals to make phone calls, purchase hygiene products, and supplement the facility food. Every dollar helps her maintain contact with the outside world.
Or call: (208) 551-5450 and tell ARAYA you want to help