Must be careful with Oakland's gang injunction

Written by Byron Williams

Sunday, 25 April 2010

What should we make of Oakland's proposed gang injunction policy that would restrict gang activity in a 100-block area in North Oakland?

My visceral reaction, "Good, it's about time!"

But intellectually I asked, "What about the 14th Amendment?"

Proposed by Oakland City Attorney John Russo, the gang injunction would identify 19 adult individuals as gang members, placing them under a curfew and prohibited from associating with one another, loitering and possessing guns in the "safety zone," in the designated areas.

I see justifiable fears that this might lead to racial profiling, lower the legal standards of the city's criminal justice system, and potentially trample on the notion of due process of law.

What would prohibit the gang injunction from drifting into martial law, creating a system that rivals the practices Capt. Renault from the movie "Casablanca," when he famously ordered, "Round up the usual suspects?"

Likewise, those caught in the crossfire of senseless violence have good reason to declare, "To hell with the 14th Amendment, I need the city to do something now!"

Both impulses are understandable, but insufficient if Oakland is to address a critical problem.

Gang injunctions are not new to California. Several cities have used this process, including San Francisco. Questions remain as to the overall effectiveness of such injunctions. In the best-case scenario, it should be viewed as a tool to address a very complex problem and by no means a panacea.

As with most controversial issues within the public conversation, nuance seldom plays a significant role, leaving the extremes to represent both sides of the debate.

Oakland's proposed gang injunction only covers adults, which should eliminate concerns about any potential long-term harm this could have on youth.

Moreover, maybe it's semantics, but "gang injunction" gives it a feeling of addressing a problem focused on youth. This is not "West Side Story," pitting the Jets against the Sharks; this is a criminal enterprise that's realizing havoc in the North Oakland community.

The evidence against the 19 individuals named in the injunction is extensive. It includes convictions for battery, armed robbery, auto theft, drunken driving, drug sales, carjacking, grand theft, possession of an assault weapon, and carrying a concealed weapon. Four of the 19 are under suspicion for three counts of murder.

Evidence also includes admissions from many of the 19 that they are in fact members of the North Oakland gang in question. All evidence will be filed with the court and open to the public.

In this civil liberties balancing act, the burden of proof, as it should be, is on government. Each time a name is to be added, the city attorney must go into court and make the case.

At the behest of the ACLU, based on lessons learned from previous gang injunctions implemented around the state, Oakland's plan will include an opt-out clause.

If the Oakland gang injunction is to realize any measurable success, prevention should part of that criteria. Those who wish to renounce their gang involvement by being gainfully employed, attending school, or other positive factors, will have the city's support to get out of gang life.

But is it possible that the either/or scenario that dominates this issue may actually be a false choice? Can Oakland have a gang injunction policy that does not morph into racial profiling, lower the standards for law enforcement, or create a system that once entered it becomes virtually impossible to exit?

I'm glad that the ACLU is raising these questions, I am also pleased that, at least on paper, it appears that Russo has put forth a narrowly focused policy that factors the concerns outlined.

But any public policy comes with unintended consequences. Government officials come and go, police officers change beats or retire, which opens the door for the policy to take on a life of its own. If that happens, then Oakland becomes one step closer to realizing the fears of those in opposition to this policy.

This places a burden on the ACLU and other community organizations, along with members of the targeted community to continue to monitor and raise questions.

The gang injunction policy has my reluctant support. I know the arguments to the contrary and intellectually I support them. But I also know that everything must be tried within the limits of the law and the spirit of the Constitution so that innocent residents might enjoy the reasonable expectation of feeling safe in their neighborhood.