Thread: ACLU disputes anti-gang order

www.sacbee.com

ACLU disputes anti-gang order
An injunction targeting Broderick Boys is called a violation of rights
By Hudson Sangree -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, July 29, 2005
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union on Thursday challenged a controversial court order aimed at stopping gang activity in West Sacramento, targeting the reputed Broderick Boys street gang.
The ACLU lawyers claimed the court order, which granted an injunction prohibiting gang members from gathering in public or staying out past 10 p.m., was issued without notifying those affected and gave them no opportunity to respond.

That violated their constitutional right to due process, said Alan Schlosser, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California.

"To essentially put hundreds of people on permanent probation without reason or notice is extraordinary," Schlosser said.

The order also is being used by police to randomly target young Latino males, Schlosser contended.

Yolo County Deputy District Attorney Jeff Reisig, who requested the injunction and is running for district attorney this year, called Schlosser's claims unfounded.

He predicted the ACLU motion to quash the injunction would fail, as did a similar effort by the Yolo County Public Defender's Office.

Yolo Superior Court Judge Kathleen White rejected that challenge in April.

Schlosser and other ACLU lawyers filed their motion with Yolo Superior Court Judge Thomas Warriner, who issued the anti-gang injunction in February.

They urged Warriner to reverse his previous order granting the restrictions, which were sought by police and prosecutors.

"He essentially gave a blank check to the Police Department to serve an injunction on anyone they deem a Broderick Boy," Schlosser said.

Another problem, he said, is that the court order was served on only one suspected gang member among the hundreds potentially affected by the injunction.

Reisig said the method of notice was both legal and effective.

"The law allows you to serve an individual member of an association, especially when notice of a lawsuit will be disseminated among other members of the association," the prosecutor said. "In this case, the person served was a notorious Broderick Boy gang member."

Reisig said police told the man he should spread the word and later observed him talking with other alleged gang members.

However, no one affected by the injunction showed up in court to argue against it before Warriner issued his February order.

Martha Garcia, a community activist in West Sacramento, said she often has seen police stop and arrest Latino men, invoking the anti-gang injunction.

"It's allowing the police to pull over anyone for any reason, and they don't even have to be breaking the law," she said. "It is not the gang that our citizens are afraid of. We're afraid of the police."

Community events such as weddings and Little League games are being disrupted, she said.

Garcia contended the Broderick Boys gang is more myth than reality.

"The only thing you'll see in this town is a little graffiti and some young wannabes," she said. "There is no organized Broderick Boys gang in West Sacramento.

"There's well-documented evidence," responded Reisig. "The Broderick Boys are robbers, murderers and drug dealers and have existed in West Sacramento for years. This is a violent and dangerous criminal street gang."

Lt. David Farmer of the the West Sacramento Police Department said Garcia's statements about police behavior are not true.

"The purpose of the injunction is to preserve the peace in our community from gang violence," Farmer said. "It doesn't focus on any particular ethnic group, gender or anything else."

Farmer said police and city officials hope to resolve some citizen concerns at a town hall meeting Saturday at 9 a.m. in the West Sacramento City Hall.

"Hopefully it's going to be a very positive community forum," he said.

The ACLU lawyers claimed the court order, which granted an injunction prohibiting gang members from gathering in public or staying out past 10 p.m., was issued without notifying those affected and gave them no opportunity to respond.

the city could require "permits" to gather in public places and there are also many cities that have curfews for minors. In some cities you can be arrested for spitting on the sidewalk or cursing in public