Gang injunction

A gang injunction is a court-issued restraining order prohibiting gang members from participating in certain activities. It is based on the legal theory that gang activity constitutes a public nuisance that prevents non-gang members from enjoying peace in their communities.

History

While Los Angeles experimented with gang injunctions in the 1980s, the first gang injunction to make headlines was obtained by Los Angeles City Attorney James Hahn against the West Los Angeles-based Playboy Gangster Crips in 1987. The move was hailed as an innovative way for law enforcement to crack down on gangs, allowing people to regain control of their neighborhoods. In 1993, the Los Angeles City Attorney's office filed for another injunction, this time against 500 members of the Blythe Street Gang of Panorama City. The American Civil Liberties Union joined other groups in opposing the injunction, arguing that it would outlaw such legal activities as carrying on conversations and possessing tools like pocket knives and screwdrivers, and that it would lead to injustices against people whose identity had been mistaken. The injunction was issued despite the efforts against it. It was followed by injunctions in the cities of San Jose, Burbank, Westminster, Pasadena, Redondo Beach, and Oxnard.

In Los Angeles today, under current City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, there are 33 gang injunctions covering 50 gangs and 11,000 gang members in the City of Los Angeles. Many attribute the 33% decline in gang membership in L.A. over the past five years (from 57,000 members in 2001 to roughly 39,000 members today) to the effective use of civil gang injunctions by City law enforcement officials.

Background

Gang injunctions form the most important aspect of what is referred to as the "suppression model" of anti-gang enforcement. The suppression model was criticized in a 1994 report by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which stated that in communities where suppression is used, alternatives and diversion programs for at-risk youth diminish, and that the labor market is not sufficiently able to absorb under-educated adults who were involved in gangs during their youth. It also stated that while injunctions may be effective in decreasing gang activity in neighborhoods and small towns, they have little effect on gang activity in large cities such as Los Angeles.

Legal challenges

In 1997, the case of "People ex rel Gallo v Carlos Acuna" [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s046980.pdf] challenged the constitutionality of gang injunctions. Lower courts had held that provisions disallowing gang members to associate with one another violated their first amendment right to free assembly. However, the Supreme Court of California upheld the constitutionality of the use of gang injunctions, finding that gang activity fell under the definition of a public nuisance. Nonetheless, a dissenting opinion authored by Justice Stanley Mosk warned that "The majority would permit our cities to close off entire neighborhoods to Latino youths who have done nothing more than dress in blue or black clothing or associate with others who do so; they would authorize criminal penalties for ordinary, nondisruptive acts of walking or driving through a residential neighborhood with a relative or a friend." In a similar case, the 1999 case of "Chicago v. Morales" [http://www.streetgangs.com/injunctions/topics/061099morales.html] against a 1992 anti-"Congregation Ordinance" in Chicago resulted in the high court's upholding the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling that the ordinance violated due process and arbitrarily restricted personal liberties.

Gang injunctions today

Since 1999, to prevent rulings against injunctions in the name of constitutionality, city attorneys have carefully worded their filings so that they individually name every gang member, establish a designated area where the injunction applies, and enumerate the exact activities that gang members are prohibited from doing. These generally include association with one another, wearing certain clothes, making certain hand gestures, acting as lookouts, fighting, drinking, and using drugs. Some prohibited activities are already illegal, but the injunction means that violators can be held in contempt of court, which would demand additional sanctions. Violators who conduct activities that are normally legal are charged with violating a court order, which can carry a six-month jail sentence in California.

ee also

*Anti-social behaviour order

References

*Allan, Edward L. "Civil gang abatement : the effectiveness and implications of policing by injunction". New York: LFB Scholarly Pub., 2004. ISBN 1-59332-041-8

External links

* [http://www.streetgangs.com/injunctions/topics/blythereport.pdf The ACLU's Blythe Report]
* [http://www.streetgangs.com/injunctions Gang injunctions from streetgangs.com]
* [http://www.sdcda.org/protecting/gang.php Gang injunctions in the city of San Diego]
* [http://www.oxnardpd.org/misc/GangInjunction.htm Gang injunctions in Oxnard]
* [http://www.elpasotexas.gov/police/gang_injunctions.asp Gang injunctions in the City of El Paso]