Controversy further stoked as Oakland considers new injunctions
on October 12, 2011
Despite the controversial nature of gang injunctions, the City of Oakland is considering implementing additional injunctions throughout the city. This comes on the heels of a report released by the City Attorney’s office documenting the results of the first injunction that was issued in the North Oakland Area in June 2010.
Gang injunctions restrict gang members from participating in activities considered to foster criminal activity by imposing curfews and preventing identified members from associating with one another. Gang injunctions have been a very controversial issue in Oakland. Residents have expressed concerns that the injunctions target specific individuals and racial groups and do not address the city’s broader crime problems.
Currently, the city of Oakland has two gang injunctions in place. The first one was filed in May 2010 against 15 members of the North Side Oakland Gang and another was filed in October against 40 members of the Nortenos gang in the Fruitvale area.
At last week’s council meeting, the council considered a proposal that would amend a policy they adopted in May that prevents the implementation of further gang injunctions until the city conducts an effectiveness study. Outside of Oakland City Hall and the council chambers, crowds gathered to show either support or opposition for injunctions, while more than 400 community members signed up to speak during the public comments session on crime-related matters, including the proposed teen curfew.
“These are really a bad tool,” said Oakland resident Rachel Herzing, a member of the Stop the Injunctions Coalition, as she stood outside of the council meeting. “To expand them flies against what we were told at first. Someone outside of the system needs to analyze the data. There hasn’t been a comprehensive review.”
Bill Canada, a Richmond resident who addressed the council at the meeting, said, “It starts off targeting specific groups. They try to make it sound general but it’s targeting young African American and Latino men. Look at the areas it’s being initiated in.”
But others, like Oakland resident Pat Ruelas, said that they support gang injunctions and other safety measures. “I don’t care what it takes,” Ruelas said. “Drastic times call for drastic measures.”
After hearing from a third of the speakers, the council postponed discussion of the matter to a future Public Safety Committee meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for October 25 at 5:30pm, according to the City Clerk’s calendar,
While officials consider implementing new injunctions, the City Attorney’s office recently filed a report showing the reduction of criminal activity by those named in the North Oakland injunction. On September 22, the City Attorney’s Office released a Review Hearing Joint Status Report on the North Side Oakland gang injunction to the Alameda County Superior Court. While the report does not conclude that the injunction has ended criminal activity in the area the injunction calls the “North Oakland Safety Zone,” it calls the recent crime statistics in the area “favorable.”
Prior to its implementation, the report states, 15 of the people named in the gang injunctions had a total of “67 arrests and 57 convictions among them” and their convictions were for “armed robbery, carjacking, drug sales, carrying guns, reckless flight form the police, vandalism, domestic battery,” and more.
Since the implementation of the North Oakland injunction, the report concludes, only one defendant has been arrested, which was for violating a probation stay-away order in August 2010. Since the last status report in February 2011, “no defendants have been arrested in the Safety Zone or within City limits,” the report states.
The city originally named 19 members in the injunction, but four were arrested for their reported involvement in a triple homicide, so the injunction focused on the remaining 15 people. Of those, two were never served with the injunction, one because he has not been located.
“The North Side Oakland gang injunction appears to have disrupted criminal activity of enjoined defendants in the Safety Zone,” the report concludes.
With the recent resignation of Oakland Police Chief Anthony Batts, who was a proponent of using gang injunctions, the implementation of additional gang injunctions will remain a heated issue at council meetings, where support for them is divided.
Councilwoman Desley Brooks (District 6) said she objects to the city implementing more injunctions without a study. “We’ve spent almost $1 million on 15 people,” said Brooks. “We don’t have that kind of money.”
3 Comments
Oakland North welcomes comments from our readers, but we ask users to keep all discussion civil and on-topic. Comments post automatically without review from our staff, but we reserve the right to delete material that is libelous, a personal attack, or spam. We request that commenters consistently use the same login name. Comments from the same user posted under multiple aliases may be deleted. Oakland North assumes no liability for comments posted to the site and no endorsement is implied; commenters are solely responsible for their own content.
Oakland North
Oakland North is an online news service produced by students at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism and covering Oakland, California. Our goals are to improve local coverage, innovate with digital media, and listen to you–about the issues that concern you and the reporting you’d like to see in your community. Please send news tips to: oaklandnorthstaff@gmail.com.
The only reason we’ve spent $1 million on 15 people is because Ms. Brooks & the Mayor’s supporters sued the City. The actual costs of the injunction are minimal because it’s enforced by regular police work.
Ms. Brooks is complaining about the costs while simultaneously defending the people causing those same costs! Talk about hypocrisy!
Oh, BTW: the lawyer suing the City, whose lawsuit Ms. Brooks supports, had a personal meeting with his Nortenos gang client to Mayor Quan. While the Council was in session asking Chief Batts questions.
first of all, Brooks in incorrect. Oakland spent $1m on both injunctions.
but let’s look at livegreen’s comment sans spin. the majority of the costs incurred are by the city attorney’s office and are not exactly minimal, since we’re talking about 600 or 700k.
as for “enforced by regular police work,” this can be taken two ways: 1) that the injunctions are redundant because regular police work, probation, and parole already have gang suppression programs — the three defendants who were removed due to involvement in a homicide did not commit that crime in the safety zone, and an injunction is not responsible for their apprehension; and 2)the actual enforcement question still has yet to be comprehensively answered by the city attorney and OPD. the judge has indicated the need for monitoring to ensure no violation of civil rights and/or police misconduct ensues, but thusfar, there is no plan in place.
it’s also incorrect to say that Ms. Brooks “sued the city.” and just because the Mayor had a meeting with an injuncted defendant, what does that prove? simply that she wanted more information. BTW, that same defendant was the victim of a police misconduct case stemming from when he was a juvenile and was found to have been illegally beaten by police. So even putting him on an injuncted list could be viewed as a retaliatory measure.
As for hypocrisy, Brooks has consistently questioned the use of city resources on what amounts to racial profiling. in fact, the costs were incurred by the city attorney’s office and their outside council, Mayers-Nave, who pursued the injunctions without first obtaining Council authorization. the defendants not only didn’t cause those costs, but, because a gang injunction is a civil proceeding, werent entitled to due process or to have an attorney by law. Ms. Brooks is not defending the NSO injunctees–they had no representation in court–she is opposed to the idea of an injunction. And, she wants comprehensive data before judging the effectiveness of the current injunctions or proceeding with new one.
while we’re on the subject, if the purpose of the injunctions was to reduced violent crime–which is what Russo claimed–then they have not been effective (shootings doubled in the NSO area after the injunctions).
Furthermore, its questionable as to why you would even put an injunction in NSO when the city’s worst hotspots for violent crime are in West and East Oakland. this is an important point because had the injunctions been placed in these areas, they could have been in alignment with OPD’s hotspot enforcement strategy. But since they’re not, we have to wonder why?
Wouldnt that 300k spent on police time been better directed toward the gang and guns task force, which actually makes major cases in Oakland? Sweeping a bunch of low-level weed dealers out of a neighborhood ripe for gentrification is not the same as stemming the flow of drugs and/or illegal guns into Oakland. At best, the injunctions have displaced street dealers to other areas. They have not achieved a permanent reduction in crime.
Of course African American and Latinos are going to be targeted if the gangs are African American and Latino gangs!