Oakland gang injunctions

In February 2010, Oakland city attorney John Russo filed for the city's first gang injunction, proposing a "safety zone" of 100 blocks in North Oakland where suspected members of five gangs would be prohibited from associating with each other and subject to a curfew. The injunctions were supported by Oakland Police Department chief Anthony Batts, who welcomed the injunctions as an additional tool against gangs. The injunction was approved by Alameda County Superior Court judge Robert Freedman in May 2010. Russo stated that up to a dozen additional gang injunctions were being considered. In October, Russo filed a proposal for a second injunction targeting the Fruitvale area. A preliminary injunction against five suspected gang members went into effect in June 2011 and the full injunction against 33 defendants was approved by Freedman in February 2012. In May 2011, the Oakland City Council voted to continue the injunction in North Oakland and continue funding the legal effort to get the Fruitvale injunction approved, but put a moratorium on future gang injunctions subject to council study and approval.{{cite news |title=Gang Injunction to Continue in Oakland |url=https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/gang-injunction-to-continue-in-oakland/1891855/ |access-date=9 February 2024 |work=NBC Bay Area |agency=Bay City News |publisher=NBCUniversal Media |date=May 18, 2011}}{{cite news |last1=Stelzer |first1=Andrew |title=The Fight Over Gang Injunctions |url=https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/319491-the-fight-over-gang-injunctions |access-date=9 February 2024 |work=Los Angeles Daily Journal |publisher=Daily Journal Corporation |date=2 June 2012}} In October 2011, the city was considering additional gang injunctions, but no further proposals were filed.{{cite news |last1=Kwamilele |first1=Tasion |title=Controversy further stoked as Oakland considers new injunctions |url=https://oaklandnorth.net/2011/10/12/controversy-further-stoked-as-oakland-considers-new-injunctions/ |work=Oakland North |publisher=UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism |access-date=9 February 2024 |date=12 October 2011}}

Opponents of the injunctions argued that they would lead to increased racial profiling and intimidation of minorities by police.{{cite news |title=Opposition builds against Oakland gang injunctions |url=https://sfbayview.com/2010/05/opposition-builds-against-oakland-gang-injunctions/ |access-date=9 February 2024 |work=San Francisco Bay View |agency=Indybay |publisher=Dr. Willie and Mary Ratcliff |date=7 May 2010}}{{cite news |title=Some residents skeptical about Oakland gang injunctions |url=https://abc7news.com/archive/7725829/ |access-date=9 February 2024 |work=ABC7 San Francisco |publisher=ABC7 San Francisco |date=14 October 2010 |language=en}} A year into the North Oakland injunction, while drug related arrests were down in the "safety zone", homicides, assaults, and other violent crimes in the zone had increased. By the end of the Fruitvale injunctions in 2015, just 8 of the 40 alleged gang members subject to the injunction had been arrested within the zone.{{cite news |last1=Bulwa |first1=Demien |title=Oakland gang injunction opponents fight 2 battles |url=https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oakland-gang-injunction-opponents-fight-2-battles-2473542.php |access-date=9 February 2024 |work=San Francisco Chronicle |publisher=Hearst Communications |date=23 February 2011}}{{cite news |last1=Burt |first1=Cecily |title=Report: North Oakland gang injunction has not reduced violent crime |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/11/08/report-north-oakland-gang-injunction-has-not-reduced-violent-crime/ |access-date=9 February 2024 |work=The Mercury News |publisher=MediaNews Group |date=8 November 2011}} Maintaining the injunctions was also considered costly. By February 2011, $750,000 had been spent by the city in legal fees and additional police wages. By November 2011, policing the injunction zones was estimated to have cost the city $130,000 while legal fees had cost over $1 million.

Proponents of the injunctions accused Oakland Mayor Jean Quan of not supporting the injunctions enough. While Quan publicly supported the injunctions, she also criticized them as being overly ambitious and too broad. In May 2011 John Russo announced his resignation from city attorney, effective in June, in large part due to Quan's lack of support for the injunctions. Russo accused Quan of trying to make him the face of the gang injunctions because he was white instead of police chief Anthony Batts, who is black. After resignation, Russo became the city manager of Alameda. In August, Batts also resigned his position over the perceived lack of support, stating that the city "had not let the chief be the chief". Quan was also accused of having a conflict of interest, as her legal adviser Dan Siegel and his firm Siegel and Yee represented some of the accused gang members targeted by the injunctions. In May 2011, Siegel and Yee were removed from the case by the court due to the potential conflict of interest.{{cite news |last1=Wagstaff |first1=Evan |title=Oakland Mayor and Gang Policy Mix Uneasily |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/us/10bcgangs.html |access-date=9 February 2024 |work=The New York Times |publisher=The New York Times Company |date=10 June 2011}}

The defendants of the Fruitvale gang injunction appealed the decision of approval, but in June 2014 California First District Court of Appeal justice Maria Rivera upheld the injunction.{{cite news |last1=Lee |first1=Henry K. |title=Oakland's gang injunction upheld |url=https://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Oakland-s-gang-injunction-upheld-5573920.php |access-date=9 February 2024 |work=San Francisco Chronicle |publisher=Hearst Communications |date=23 June 2014 |language=en}}

By 2015, Oakland had a new mayor (Libby Schaaf), a new city attorney (Barbara Parker), and a new police chief (Sean Whent). On March 5, Parker announced that she would dismiss the injunctions with the support of Whent, citing changing policies and strategy.{{cite news |last1=Artz |first1=Matthew |title=Oakland dismisses gang injunctions it fought hard to secure |url=https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/05/oakland-dismisses-gang-injunctions-it-fought-hard-to-secure/ |access-date=9 February 2024 |work=The Mercury News |publisher=MediaNews Group |date=5 March 2015}}{{cite news |title=Oakland Dropping Controversial Gang Injunction; Included Curfew, Banned Wearing Certain Colors |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/oakland-dropping-controversial-gang-injunction-included-curfew-banned-wearing-certain-colors/ |work=CBS Bay Area |publisher=CBS Broadcasting |date=6 March 2015}} The move was cited as part of a greater decline of the use of gang injunctions in California due to strong community criticism and issues of legality.{{cite news |last1=Queally |first1=James |title=California moving away from gang injunctions amid criticism, falling crime rates |url=https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-gang-injunctions-california-20180708-story.html |access-date=9 February 2024 |work=Los Angeles Times |publisher=California Times |date=8 July 2018}}

{{Portal|San Francisco Bay Area}}

{{Reflist|26em}}

Gang injunctions

Category:Crime in the San Francisco Bay Area

Category:Crime prevention

Category:Law in the San Francisco Bay Area