吃瓜大本营

Peter Arellano鈥檚 life changed when a Los Angeles Police Department officer handed him a piece of paper informing him that he was now subject to a 鈥済ang injunction.鈥� He could no longer visit his neighbors in their homes, drive to church with his family, ride his bike through the local park, or even stand in his own front yard with his father or brother. If he violated these terms, he could be arrested and jailed. Arellano, who has never been convicted of any crime, had effectively been placed on house arrest.

Gang injunctions are ineffective policing tools that primarily serve to criminalize young Black and Latino men. Nonetheless, Los Angeles has been operating a massive gang injunction program for decades. Like nearly 9,000 other Angelenos, Arellano was subjected to an injunction solely based on an LAPD officer鈥檚 opinion, a whim that was approved by a city attorney, that he was a gang member. He never got to challenge the allegation or even know what evidence was used against him. This decision to radically limit his freedom didn鈥檛 involve a court.

Gang injunctions represent a radical departure from constitutional due process. To obtain a gang injunction, a prosecutor files a civil 鈥渘uisance abatement鈥� lawsuit against a particular gang, claiming that its conduct harms the community. The gang, which is not a formal organization and has no legal representation, does not appear at trial. With no one to argue against the need for an injunction, it is granted by default.

The police then serve people they claim are the gang鈥檚 members with copies of the injunction days, or years, later, asserting that they are now bound by its terms. While people could challenge after being served, it required proving they were not gang members without knowing why the city claimed they were. Unsurprisingly, only a handful of people were successful in getting freed from injunctions.

Gang injunctions turn common behavior into crimes, such as possessing everyday items like cell phones, drinking alcohol on your own front porch or in a restaurant, and associating with people the police also claim are gang members 鈥� even your own family. Officers鈥� gang designations are drawn from stereotypes and preconceptions based on clothing鈥攁nything from plaid shirts to basketball shorts to khakis鈥攖hat they deem 鈥済ang attire,鈥� associates, and if someone lives or socializes in alleged 鈥済ang areas鈥濃�攚hich can include an entire community.

Officers use injunctions to circumvent the protections afforded by a criminal prosecution, which is exactly why gang injunctions have been a significant tool in the LAPD鈥檚 arsenal despite they create a significant or sustained crime reduction. What they provide is the justification to stop, harass, and arrest Black and Latino community members.

Critics of injunctions 鈥� such as the Youth Justice Coalition, an organization that has been fighting against their use for years 鈥� have that injunctions recently have been used more as a tool to push Black and Latino residents out of popular neighborhoods than to fight crime. Indeed, the gang injunction enforced against Peter was obtained in 2013 in Echo Park 鈥� a gentrifying neighborhood where crime was at an historic low.

But the tide is turning. The ACLU of Southern California just won a major victory against the city of Los Angeles鈥� use of these restrictive gang injunctions 鈥� effectively ending the city鈥檚 practice. In a class action lawsuit, which included Peter Arellano and Youth Justice Coalition, the ACLU and co-counsel Urban Peace Institute and Munger Tolles and Olson challenged the city鈥檚 enforcement of injunctions without first providing a hearing on active gang membership, claiming this practice violated their constitutionally protected due process rights.

A federal court , finding that the process was prone to error and granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing its injunctions against anyone who has not had the opportunity to challenge the designation in court before they were made subject to the injunction.

This is one of both recognizing that police-imposed gang labels are often inaccurate yet carry serious criminal and immigration consequences, and creating a process to challenge these designations before they take effect.

Gang injunctions restrict people鈥檚 freedom, often without a shred of due process, on questionable 鈥渆vidence,鈥� and with no significant public safety benefit. The costs far outweigh even the alleged benefits and the ACLU and others will continue to fight to ensure that police don鈥檛 continue to destroy people鈥檚 lives by unilaterally imposing gang labels.