Wednesday, May 26, 2010
A Guide to the North Oakland Gang Injunction
Politics / Law Enforcement & Crime Tessa Stuart — Wed, May 26, 2010 at 7:51 AM
With Oakland’s gang injunction request going before a judge on Thursday, May 27, we thought it made sense to put together a guide about what it would do:
What is a Gang Injunction?
Essentially, a gang injunction is a civil suit, similar to a restraining order, filed by the city against a group of people considered a “public nuisance.” Section 3479 of the California Civil Code defines as a nuisance “Anything which is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property...” Normally, this section of the code is invoked in suits to halt the activity of a large-scale polluter, like a manufacturer of lead-paint for instance, but in California it has been used a tool to restrict gang activity.
Who is included in the injunction?
The North Side Oakland gang, 15 members of which are explicitly named in the suit, in addition to “Doe One through Doe Seventy.”
Who are these “Does”? Could I be enjoined and not know it?
The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced concerns in a brief filed with the court, stating that the injunction, as originally proposed, “purports to give the police complete and unfettered discretion to impose the restrictions of the injunction on at least 62 unnamed persons simply by notifying them they are considered a North Side Oakland gang member. … It has no standards, guidelines, or criteria to guide the police as they determine whom they can serve with a court order.”
But the Oakland City Attorney’s Office has responded by stressing the fact that any person added to the injunction will be explicitly named as a defendant. The inclusion of “Does One through Seventy,” the city maintains, is standard legal practice to indicate that more defendants could be added in the future. “Any additional person included in the injunction will also be named as an individual defendant… [they] will have the opportunity to argue their case in court, and they will only be subject to the injunction after approval from a judge.” In other words, Oakland cops will not be able to decide on their own who to add to the injunction. The City Attorney’s office says there will also be an “opt-out” process through which a person named in the suit could petition to be removed if they are no longer associated with the gang.
What activities are illegal?
The injunction prohibits the persons named from participating in certain activities outlined in the suit. Driving, standing, sitting, walking, gathering or appearing, anywhere in public view or any place accessible to the public with any “known member” of the North Side Oakland gang (not just those named in the suit) is forbidden, though there are exceptions to attend church, school, and places of employment. Loitering in public, trespassing on private property, intimidating witnesses, and recruiting new gang members are also explicitly prohibited by the order, as is possessing of any kind firearm, weapon, graffiti paraphernalia, or drugs. Those listed in the order are also subject to a 10 p.m. curfew.
What happens if someone violates the injunction?
Every violation is punishable by $1000 fine or 6 months in jail.
Doesn’t this violate the constitution? How is it legal?
The California Supreme Court upheld the legality of gang injunctions in the 1997 ruling People ex rel Gallo v. Acuna. The appellant challenged the constitutionality of an injunction imposed in San Jose, arguing it violated the freedom of assembly guaranteed by the constitution. But the high court ruled that gang activity could be considered a public nuisance, and cities could impose civil restraining orders to limit it.
Why North Oakland?
Gangs are a problem in a number of areas of Oakland, and some ask why North Oakland, which has fewer gang troubles than other areas, is being targeted for the injunction. Oakland City Attorney says that violence has escalated recently in the neighborhood, citing figures that crimes involving homicide, shootings, or gun possession in the area rose in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The City Attorney’s Office also says the injunction is being filed in response to requests from North Oakland residents and merchants.
North Oakland also is quickly becoming one of the most desirable neighborhoods in the region, and some people have contended that the injunction is part of a larger gentrification of the area, that is pushing out long-time residents. In the beginning of this year, according the national real estate brokerage ZipRealty, more houses sold above the asking price in the 94608 zip code where the injunction will be imposed than almost anywhere else in country (North Oakland was second only to Chicago’s Loop neighborhood).
Do injunctions work?
The city thinks so. City Attorney John Russo has referenced a study that found “in the first year after the injunctions are imposed, they lead the level of violent crime to decrease by 5-10 percent.”
But the ACLU disagrees: “Los Angeles has numerous gang injunctions — more than any other city, yet lost more than 10,000 youth to gang violence in the last twenty years. New York is a major city with the potential for serious gang problems, yet in 2005 Los Angeles had more than 11,000 gang-related crimes, while New York faced 520.”
Some studies also question the effectiveness of injunctions. Researchers at the University of California, Irvine found that, six months after an injunction in San Bernardino County, residents reported decreases in fear of gangs, incidences of intimidation by gang members, and gang-visibility. But the injunction did not, according to the study, appear to have any effect on the rate of violence experienced by residents, nor did it increase trust of police or sense of social control.
In addition, when instituted in less violent areas, researchers found that injunctions had a negative effect. The study included a neighboring area which initially experienced less gang violence; when the injunction was later extended to that area, it brought with it increased indicators of gang-visibility and feelings of victimization. The researchers hypothesized that gang activity may have relocated to that area after the first injunction was imposed.
Who is opposes the injunction?
The ACLU, for one. When articulating their opposition the ACLU points to four reasons:
1. Injunctions impose restrictions without affording those named in the suit the normal due process protections of the criminal justice system, most importantly the right to a lawyer.
2. Injunctions prevent the exercise of basic rights guaranteed by the constitution — the right to peaceably assemble, for example.
3. Injunctions target a broad range of activities, including some perfectly legal ones. For instance, if more than one member of a family is listed in the injunction, then simply attending a family get-together becomes a punishable offense.
4. Injunctions have the potential to stigmatize members of the community and increase racial polarization. The ACLU says: “Every gang injunction in this State of which [they] are aware has been imposed almost exclusively on persons of color and in communities of color. The potential for racial profiling and racial stereotyping … cannot be ignored in assessing this law enforcement tool.”
Who supports it?
Oakland Chief of Police Anthony Batts, who oversaw a number of gang injunctions in the city of Long Beach before coming to Oakland, says he’s seen their effectiveness first-hand: “It was another area much like this, we had a gang … that basically took over that community. Good people couldn’t walk down the street, they couldn’t drive down the street, and within the first year of the injunction you had kids back out playing in the streets.”
Oakland City Attorney John Russo has echoed that sentiment, saying: “This is just a tool; it is one of many. But it is a tool that has worked well in other cities. It makes it harder for the gang to plan or carry out the crimes that allow it to exist as an organization.”
On a recent visit to Youth Uprising in Oakland, US Attorney General Eric Holder said that the injunction was one example of law enforcement’s efforts to try new tactics to reduce crime: “We don’t want to get tough on crime, we want to get smart on crime … We have to find all kinds of ways to be creative.”
The Oakland Tribune also voiced its support in an editorial published Tuesday, writing: “We urge the court to approve Oakland's request [to impose the injunction].”
Comments (11)
Showing 1-11 of 11
Those who criticize the gang injunction obviously do not understand the psychology of the gang intimidation process. Gangs target the vulnerable (generally the residents of North Oakland) and they "glamorize" their criminal lifestyle to entice the younger children to join their cliques. The ACLU and the organizations that claim it does not work have not proposed anything else to alleviate this problem. The ACLU is part of the problem,
Thank you John Russo and your attorneys who worked on the gang injunction. Thank you Chief Batts for supporting the gang injunction. And thank you to the officers who believed in the gang injunction. Thank you to the Court who saw how the gangs criminal element held the neighborhood hostage. Thank you to the politicians who supported the City Attorney's work. These are the people who belived in protecting us, the residents of north Oakland.
like
dislike
Hate on the ACLU all you want, but they protect the very freedoms that you are all exercising RIGHT NOW on this thread: FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. It's not the ACLU's job to come up with plans to fix the problem, nor did the ACLU ever claim such. The burden to keep the city safe rests with the LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THEY need to figure out a CONSTITUTIONAL way to clean up the streets. Enjoy your constitutional rights, and have a nice day!
"tired old views that have done nothing to ameliorate gang violence"??
Have we ever put even a fraction of the resources the police department, courts, local jails, surveillance, etc get into community programs? No. The police budget is half the general fund in Oakland, which leaves precious little for everything else.
Antonio Testiculari - I'm sorry you feel the need to call names to make your point. I hope you get the feeling of safety that you're looking for, I hope we all do - but by reinvestment in the community, not through criminalization, harassment, and creation of second- or third-class citizens.
I hate to say it but part of "gang injunctions" is an opportunity for City Attorneys and other politicos to get their names in the news and appear proactive. Maintain aggressive law enforcement and community policing.
Fear often makes humans stop thinking with their brains. Fear is also manipulated by popularist and politicians to no good end except the perpetuation of the politician and the expenditure of money for no good end. The overwhelming conclusion of the study of gang injunctions is that they do not work to significantly reduce violence or criminality. (That's a period.) There are alternative gang initiatives that do work. (That's a period) The police officers, who would implement this North Oakland injunction and the other 12 that Russo wants, do not want to have to name the folks first. This is Russo's Folly. It is akin to Jim Crow laws in the South; meant to solve one problem but got used for something else that was wrong and evil.
The questions all Oakland residents should ask themselves are:
1. Will fining and jailing injunction offenders actually reduce "crime" in Oakland? Does sending these supposed "gang" members to jail or forcing them to pay a fine actually deter what Russo and the OPD call criminal behavior? I asked Russo this question at a Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) meeting, and he stated that the criminal justice system does not work to rehabilitate offenders. So, why is this a solution? Don't we want people in our community who are causing "nuisances" to change their lifestyle?
This leads to the second question, which is why are people engaging in "gang" activity, or criminal behavior in Oakland? Will more police solve the problem, or will it only lead to more criminal activity (e.g. Oscar Grant, Gary King murders)? If we really care about safety, we need to institute community programs that reach out to folks in "gangs" and provide them with REAL alternatives- not prisons, where gang activity is probably only increased. Most people join gangs because the current opportunities offered to them do not meet their needs- the schools are overcrowded, there are few jobs available, let alone jobs that tap into someone's creativity, and even if you have a job, is it enough to lead the life that is promoted on TV (big house, car, etc.)? These are the fundamental issues we need to be discussing to get to the root societal problems.
This "evolved" injunction is "evolved" because the community and ACLU challenged Russo! The only reason there is an opt out program is because people held him accountable! I am sure if people didn't speak up, we'd have an even more draconian injunction. Now Russo has lined up all his media buddies to do his bidding. Typical political propaganda. "We aren't targeting youth," say Russo- who is to say people over 18 are fully mature adults? A lot of young people involved in "criminal" activity have been stuck in a juvenile system that is under-resourced and provides no sort of support. The REAL solution is in all of our hands- if we stopped asking another body to do our work (the Police), maybe we would have developed community networks that actually care for our next generations, as opposed to leading our individualistic, alienated lives that ignore things that we fear: the next generation that is responding to centuries of disregard, distrust and a system that only rewards the greedy few.
Don't forget that the incredible imbalance of wealth in this country and internationally leads people to extreme poverty, and consequently, the development of alternative economies, that include the same criminal elements of the dominant economy (Wall Street, Enron, BP, etc.). Only if we could enjoin those corporations...Russo, would you please?
Lisaoak is another of those geniuses who keep chanting, "Better education, more community involvement", tired old views that, until now, have done nothing to ameliorate the growing gang-violence in all parts of Oakland and the threat these gang members pose to everyday people who actually live in the areas, and whose lives are so impacted by the lawlessness inthe streets. And to tell you the truth, many are tired of the hackneyed platitudes and atitudes of gang sympathizers like you.
I, too, live in North Oakland, and I say to the police that there are many of us who support their efforts to create a law-abiding community. But some nitwits, in the name of Democracy and Constitutionality, incessantly protest what most intelligent people would consider to be normal policing activities.
This Lisaoak person will have every corner of North Oakland filled with gangbangers, car thieves, robbers, rapists and prostitutes.
Thanks, Lisaoak, for looking after the well being of us North Oaklanders. You are little better than the gangs you are trying to protect.
I live in North Oakland, and am part of a coalition of people who oppose it. This article is very imbalanced.
The problem with gang injunctions is that they don't work, and rip apart the communities they are implemented in. Research shows that these heavyhanded gang suppression tactics (Russo keeps trying to say that this is an 'evolved' injunction - there is no such thing!) do not work, and the only things that do work are alleviating poverty and investing in people through 'evolved' education (one that encourages critical thinking), mentoring and afterschool programs, and letting communities determine what safety means to them - not shoving police down their throats. Russo can spin this however he wants, he is the cop's lawyer, and is advocating for them, not for us.
Here is a list of a few other organizations that oppose it:
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
All of Us or None
Oakland Community Action Network
Critical Resistance
National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area
PUEBLO
Proyecto Common Touch
The Center for Young Womens Development
Black Alliance for Just Immigration
Copwatch
Center for Third World Organizing
Prison Activist Resource Center
For more, check out stoptheinjunction.wordpress.com
ACLU CAN GO TO HELL!
DO THESE JERKS CRYING OUT AGAINST THE INJUSTICE COMMITTED AGAINST THESE POOR MINORITY MEMBERS LIVE IN ANY OF THE AFFECTED AREAS???????
I CAN GIVE YOU THE ANSWER RIGHT NOW: NO!
THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE VICTIMS THESE GANG MEMBERS TERRORIZE 24/7. THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT ONE THING: ANOTHER FEATHER IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAP. THESE PEOPLE ARE THE LOWEST OF THE LOW. THEY AREN'T PROTECTING ANYONE, ONLY MAKING NAMES FOR THEMSELVES IN THE NAME OF THE CONSTITUTION AND EXCERCISING A SELF RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT DOESN'T REALLY GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ANYTHING BUT THEMSELVES.
First of all, take all the ACLU idiots, put them on a garbage scow and dump them out around the Farrallones. The ACLU is really quick to jump on the Constitutional bandwagon, but it doesn't have any suggestions for how to combat this growing gang-threat that is holding the country hostage. They don't care about that, only the personal glory of those in the ACLU.
And these s.o.b.'s from ACLU level charges of racism because, as they state, the gang control focuses on people of color. Okay, idiots, let's also do some policing of the churches and retirement homes and check out gang activity of church members and elderly ladies. (I have heard there is gang activity in the retirement village in North Berkeley. Maybe a raid or two there would take the heat off law enforcement and quieten accusations of racism.
Dealing with these murderous groups should be done with a very hard hand and not a velvet glove.
Convict gang members and impose gang separation in prison, accentuated with long terms in solitary for the really hard to convince gangbangers.
Where are the Night Riders when we need them????
No sense in doing this just in North Oakland, without also doing it in West and East Oakland, where gangs are a LOT more prevalent and causing mayhem. Unfortunately, gangs and the gang-lifestyle are deep rooted in California, and solving the problems that come with is an overwhelming task. More than gang injunctions are needed, but too often cities have their hands tied when they want to combat gangs because gang members "rights" come into question.
Author Archives
-
Spin Leaks Outside Lands Line-up
- May 26, 2010
-
Local Nonprofits At Risk of Losing Status
- May 17, 2010
- More»
