Case Conclusion Date: 03.08.2010
Practice Area: Constitutional
Outcome: The court reversed the trial court's order as to the injunction's controlled substances and alcohol restrictions, but affirmed the order in all other respects.
Description: The evidence supporting the injunction included copies of the criminal records of the named defendants, the declarations of numerous police officers familiar with the area, and the declaration of a gang expert. The court noted that the clear and convincing evidence standard applied to the review of a gang injunction because of the importance of the interests affected. The court found the evidence sufficient to prove the existence of a criminal street gang. To establish that the gang members' activities constituted a public nuisance within the meaning of Civ. Code, §§ 3479, 3480, it was not necessary to prove conduct amounting to a gang crime under Pen. Code, § 186.22. The evidence showed that area residents would be harmed absent an injunction. The definition of active gang members was sufficiently specific. Provisions that restricted public association with other gang members, prohibited trespassing, and imposed a curfew were not overbroad and did not excessively burden associational and other protected rights. Controlled substances and alcohol restrictions were vague and unenforceable because they did not clearly indicate whether gang members could enter pharmacies and bars.