Public Defender Mission Gang Injunction Brief

Jeff Adachi
Public Detknder
State R x No. 121287
Cit? and Countj of San Francisco
Teresa Caffese
Chief Attorne!
555 Seienth Street
San Francisco. CA 91103
(115) 553-9734: (115) 553-16-1
ENQQBSFQ
FILED
San Franrkco rJo!mm~uoeri~i@!.t@
ccw
o 5 2007
GORDON PARK-U, clelk.
B%
JFPur? cier!:
CAROLYNBAU9 FRI
Attorneys for Antonio Buitrago
Superior Court of the State of California
City and County of San Francisco
People of the State of California. by
and through Dennis J. Herrera, City
Attorney for the City and County of San
Francisco,
Plaintiff,
Court No. CGC 0746449%
Date: September 18, 2007
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Dept.: Dept. 302
\is.
Norteiio, a criminal street sang sued as
an unincorporated association, and
Complaint Filed: June 2 1, 2007
Trial Date: None yet
Does One through Five Hundred.
inclusive.
Defendant
Antonio Buitrago
Defendant Intervenor
IIernorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs
Ex Parte Application for Order to Show Cause
Re: Preliminary Gang Injunction
Tablc of Contents
introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
4rgument
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Plaintiff has not established that '.Nortefio" is a legal entity capable of
beingsued. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. .
The requirements for the issuance of a preliminary injunction have not been met. 3
A. Plaintiff has not shown that it is likely to prevail at trial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
(1)
Buitrago does not dispute -- here -- that Nortefio is a criminal street
gang. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.
(2)
Plaintiff has failed to show it is likely to present clear and
convincing evidence that Nortefio is a substantial public nuisance
inthesafet)zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.
(3)
Plaintiff has failed to present a likelihood of raising clear and
convincing proof that Buitrago is an active member of the Norteiios. . . 7
(4)
The proposed injunction is not authorized under California's unfair
business practices la\\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
B. Plaintiff has failed to shohv that the balance of harms tips in its favor.
. . . . . 13
(1)
Buitrago's family relationships and responsibilities will be harmed
. .
byaninjunction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
(2)
Buitrago will be prohibited from participating in educational.
employment. religious. cultural, and other positive community
. ..
act~v~tles.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
(3)
The community \vill suffer more if the injunction is imposed than
othcr\\ise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
a.
Vague and overbroad pro\-isions of'the proposed preliminan
injunction will subiect Latino males in the community to
a r b i t r a ~and unjustified harassn~entfrom the police. . . . . . . . . 16
b.
3.
A gang injunction implemented xyithout community input
substantially harms the coln~nunityby undermining its positive
programs.
17
Any preliminary injunction must be narrowly tailored to comply lvith
constitutional and equitable mandates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A. Prohibition of Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
B. Prohibition of red clothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
C. Prohibition of gang signs and gang sqmbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
..
D. Curfewpro\lslon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
..
E. Trespassing prov~sion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6
F. Drug and paraphernalia provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
G. Graffiti and graffiti tools provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table of tivhibits
khibit A:
Declaration of Antonio Buitrago
lxhibit B:
Declaration of Iris Biblo\citr.
khibit C:
Declaration of Roberto Iiemandet.
ixhibit D:
Declaration of Eric Quezada
3ihibit E:
Declaration of Judith Greene
3xhibit F:
Declaration of Socorro Gamboa
{xhibitG:
Declaration of Henq Morales
khibit H:
Declaration of Santiago Ruiz
lxhibit I:
Declaration of Claudia Jasin
M i b i t J:
Declaration of Gustavo Lopez
Table of Authorities
Federal Cases
Cilrroll 1.. Prirlcess .Arne (1968) 393 IJ.S. 175, 183
12.20
Citv
- of'C11icago
.
v. or or ales (1999) 527 U.S. 41, 56 ....................................... 23. 24
Stephenson v. Dave/7por/ Conztil~rnihSch. Dist. (8th Cir. 1997) 110 F.3d 1303.............. 24
Dombrowski v. Pfster (1965) 380 U.S. 479: 487. .....................................................11
Grayned v. City ofRockford (1972) 408 U . S . 104 ........................................................
3. 22
Kolender v. Lawson (1983)461 U.S. 352. 357 .................................................................. 23
,Vladsen v. Women's Health Center (1991) 5 12 U.S. 753, 761 ...................... 19, 20. 21, 22
lzizinez v. C i p o f S a n Diego (9th Cir. 1997) 1 14 F. 3d 935 ..................................... 3. 25, 26
Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) 491 U.S. 781. 790 ..........................................
10
Tucker v. Fischbein, (2001) 237 F.3d 275. 279
10
Waters v. Barry (D.D.C. 1989) 71 1 F.Supp. 1125
20
State Cases
Broadman v. Commission on Judicial Performance (1988) 18 Cal.4th 1079 .................... 5
In re iVancy C. (1972) 28 Cal.App.3d 747 ........................................................................
26
People ex re1 Reisig v. The Broderick Boys (2006) 149 Cal.App.4th 1506 ........................4
People ex vel Gallo v. Acuna (1 997) 14 Cal.4th 1090 ....................................
4, 6, 7, 20, 2 1
People v. Englebrecht (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1236 .........................................2, 4, 5, 8, 22
People v. EWAP (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 320 ......................................................... 12, 13
1,anretta v. New Jersey (1939) 306 U.S. 45 1 ..........................
.
.......................................
24
It7 re Angelia (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908 ................................................................................ 5
People 1,. Carlcso (1 968) 68 Cal.2d 183 ..........................................................................
5
Plnt7neti Parenthood Ass'n v. Operation Rescue (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 290. ............. 12
Statutes
Business and Professions Code section 17200............................................................ 12. 13
Civil Code section 3479 ...................................................................................................... 6
>. .
Civil
Code sect~on~" 4 8 .......................
0
.
.
.
.
.................................................................
6
Civil Proccdure section 416.40(b) .................................... .. ..............................................4
Corporaticms Code section 18220
Corporations Code section 18035(a)
Penal Code section 186.22
.................... 4
Penal Code section 594.2
......................................... 28
7
'
Introduction
The City Attorney ("plaintiff') filed a Complaint for Injunctive Relief against
"Norteiio." alleging that: %"rtcfio"
is a criminal street gang. responsible for creating a
public nuisance in a sixty-block area of the Mission District of San Francisco ["safety
zone"]: and that Nortefio is an unincorporated association.
Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction barring 3 l alleged Nortefios from engaging in
certain activity Ivithin the safety zone, including loitering. trespassing. "intimidation."
graffiti vandalism, displaying gang signs or symbols. "\yearing red garments," or
associating with other alleged gang members. The proposed injunction would impose a
curfew on these individuals from 10:OO p.m. to sunrise daily. Injunction violations could
be pursued civilly by the City Attorney, for monetary penalties and county jail time, or
prosecuted criminally as a misdemeanor carrying six months in jail.
Plaintiff has named Antonio Buitrago as a Nortefio gang member because Buitrago
was seen in the company of other alleged gang members on several occasions and
recorded two rap songs about the Norteiio gang.
1
Buitrago opposes the injunction on three grounds: I ) he has never been a member of
the Nortefio gang: 2) there is no substantial public nuisance justifying an illjunction; and,
3 ) the in.junction imposes unnecessary and harsh restrictions upon his riehts. liberties. and
lanful activities mithin the saf'et? zone.
I
Hearing is set for September 18.2007.
!
I Set, Oliicer Molina Dcclaratiun. attached to plaintiff-s blernorandum of Points and ;
Authorities. at .35:21-26. 36:l-18.
The main issues betbre this court are:
1) Lawful purpose. A gang cannot be sen.ed as an unincorporated association unless i
was formed for some lawful purpose."'
Is Norteiio. a group plaintiff alleges to be pure]!
criminal: an unincorporated association capable of being served?
2) Proof of gang membership. To obtain a public nuisance doctrine injunction. plaintif
must prove that Buitrago is an active gang member.'
he is not a gang member.'
Buitrago emphatically asserts tha
Can speculation based solely on association and artistic
expression prove that Buitrago is a Norteiio?
3) Definition of public nuisance. Conduct constitutes a public nuisance if it affects .'at
entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons."'
Car
plaintiff show an entire community is affected without input from the community itself?
4) Balance of harm. The court must weigh "interim harm that the plaintiff is likely tc
sustain if the injunction were denied" against "harm the defendant is likely to suffer if thc
preliminary injunction were i ~ s u e d . " ~Here, an injunction means Buitrago cannoi
continue his education or his volunteer work, and his employment, as well as that of hi:
sister and aunt, will be jeopardized. Buitrago will be cut off from the community whert
he grew up and thirty of his relatives who continue to live there, including those closest tc
him.
Plaintiff has offered nothing to show that an injunction will produce a nei
impro\:ement in the Mission District. Does the balance of harm favor plaintiff,
5) Freedom of association. A gang injunction will not violate freedom of association il
no political. familial, or religious activity takes place among the alleged gang members
within the prohibited area.' Has plaintiff shown that no gang-members participate in
P e o p l e v. Brodeierick Boys (2006) 149 Cal.App.4th 1506. 1522.
People v. Englebrecht (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1236; 1242-12J3.
' S e e Exhibit A, Declaration of Antonio Buitrago at p.1: 15-16,
Civ. Code. $ 3480.
6
People ex re1 Gallo v. Acztnn (1997) 14 Cal.Jth 1090. 1109.
'In! at 1132.
'
political, familial, or religious actid). in light of Buitrago's familial ties and participation
in cultural and religious events'?
6) Vagueness and overbreadth. "It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment
is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined."'
Here, plaintiff seeks to
bar Buitrago from \yearing "red garments" and from displaj ing "gang synbols" without
defining these terms. Can Buitrago be expected to know the meaning of these undefined
terms'? Is a restriction that sweeps in political buttons with red lettering narrowly tailored?
7) Curfew provision. A curfew provision must account for expressive and associational
activities to comport with the First ~ m e n d m e n tand
~ burden no more First Amendment
activity than is necessary. 10 Is the proposed curfew constitutional where it contains no
First Amendment exception and includes hours during which only one-quarter of the
alleged nuisance activity occurred?
Argument
1. Plaintiff has not established that Nortefio is a legal entity capable of
being sued.
Plaintiff named "Norteiio Criminal Street Gang" ("Nortefio") as the sole defendant
here, and therefore must establish that Nortefio is a legal entity capable of being sued.
Plaintiff alleges that Nortefio is responsible for countless criminal acts enumerated in
Section 186.22(e) of the Penal Code, but also that Norteiio is an "unincorporated
association." defined by statute as "an unincorporated group of two or more persons
.joined by mutual consent,fol- a common lawful purpose, whethcr organized for profit or
not.""
' Grayned v. CiQ ofRoc@rd
(1971) 408 U.S. 104, 109.
!Vunez v. City ofSan Diego (9th Cir. 1997) 1 14 F. 3d 935: 95 1
I" Id. at 916.
I)
II
Corp. Code, $ 18035(a) (emphasis added).
.
.
..-....
-
\ O ' \ m opp,wtiiin ti) Fla~null'r I(\ l'nnr .\~~IIC.IIIIIII
i:w
Lo LTC-eJ7464493
I
- 2 -
I
In the 2006 People v Brorierick B0j.s. the Court of Appcal invalidated a gang
in.junction where the gang was "ser~zd"as an unincorporated association under Code ol
Civil Procedure section 116.40(b) and Corporations Code section 18220, for failure tc
show the gang .-\\-as formed for at least some In\vful purpose."'2 Likewise. the injunction
sought here must fail because plaintiff has named the Nortefio gang as an unincorporated
association nithout even alleging that the gang has a la\\ful purpose.
2. The requirements for the issuance of a preliminary injunction have
not been met.
This court must consider two interrelated factors in evaluating whether plaintiff is
entitled to a preliminary injunction: 1) whether plaintiff has shown it is likely to prevail al
trial on the merits; and 2) whether the interim harm plaintiff will suffer if the injunction is
denied outweighs the harm defendant will suffer if the preliminary injunction issues.13
A. Plaintiff has not shown that it is likely to prevail at trial.
To p r e ~ a i lat trial. plaintiff must prove all elements required for the issuance of a gang
injunction by clear and convincing evidence due to "constitutional due process and more
general public policy considerations."'" This heightened standard of proof is needed ..not
because the personal activities enjoined are sublime or grand but rather because they arc
commonplace, and ordinary.""
ex re1 Reisig v. The Broderick Boys (2006) 119 Cal.App.4th 1506. 1522.
I
I
I-' People eu rel. Gullo v. Ac~ma( 1997)11 Cal.4th 1090. 1 109: Chntine17fulRmkep Co. i
v. Kmz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 527.
II
People v. En~lehrecizt(2001) 88 Cal.App.1th 1236. 1255-56.
IS
Id. at 1256.
" People
Clear and convincing evidencc requires a finding of high probabilityih with proof ..so,
~
clear as to leave no substantial doubt" and "sufficiently strong to command the
!
unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.""
1
"Clear and convincing" evidence ;
requires reasonable certainty that the wrongful acts will be continued or repeated.'"
To obtain an injunction under the public nuisance doctrine, plaintiff must prove that: j
1
1) Nortefio is a criminal street gang: 2) there is a public nuisance being caused by the acts
of Nortefios; and. 3) each named individual is an '.active gang mernber."19 Plaintiff has
not shown itself likely to prove these elements by clear and convincing evidence at trial.
( I ) Buitrago does not dispute -- here -- that Nortefio is a criminal street gang.
For purposes of this preliminary injunction hearing ordy, Buitrago does not contest that
the Nortefio gang is a criminal street gang.
(2) Plaintiff has failed to show it is likely to present clear and convincirzg evidence that
Novtefio is a substantial public nuisance in the safety zone.
To invoke the public nuisance doctrine, the alleged objectionable activity must meet
the statutory definition of public nuisance. Conduct which constitutes a public nuisance
under Civil Code section 3479 is "injurious to health, . . . indecent or offensive to the
senses, . . . an obstruction to the free use of propert). so as to interfere with the
I
comfortable enjoyment of life or property. or unlawfully obstruct free passage or use, in
the customary manner, of any . . . public park, square, street, or highway." The conduct
~
must affect "an entire community or neighborhood. or any considerable number o f ,
!
''Broahar? v. Comrnissiotz on Judicial Per:fbrmnnce (1988) 18 Cal. 4th 1079.
17
IX
l9
I n re Arigelia (1981) 28 Cal. 3d 908: People I,.Curuso !1968) 68 Cal. 2d 183.
Russell v. Douvon (2003) 1 12 Cal. App. 4th 39.
People 1,. Eriglehrecli/. supra 88 Cal.App.4th at 12.12-1213.
I
I
I
I
I
persons...20
flie interfurence u ~ t h community interests must be substant~al and
unreasonable. entailing a real and appreciable inlasion of the community's interests."
Plaintiff rnahes blanket assertions that Norteiio threatens the quality of life and the
safety of residents in the safety zone without support from a single member of the relevant
community. A public nuisance injunction is designed to further the value of community
and rather than punish criminal acts.'2 Without evidence from community members. the
police declarations are meaningless.
In Acuna, the Supreme Court relied heavily on fortyeight community-member
declarations to uphold a preliminary gang inj~nction.~'The safety zone was four blocks,
and none of the alleged gang members resided within the zone.
The community
declarants complained that gang members routinely obstructed residents' use of their own
property by such activities as dealing drugs from apartment houses, lawns, carports, and
even residents' automobiles and habitually obstructed the free passage or use of the public
street." The court found that residents had become "prisoners in their own homes," and
gang activities had turned the area into "occupied territory" and an ..urban war zone."25
By stark contrast, here plaintiff seeks an injunction on a sixty-block area where many
of the alleged gang members live andtor associate for lawful and legitimate purposes. and
offers nothing to shon that the community's residents vie\\ these individuals as a public
"' Civ. Code. $ 3480.
" Acurza. slyra. 14 Cal. 4th at I 105
'' Ibid.
Id. at 1 1 1 8.
.- Id. at 1 110.
'' Id. at 1 100.
'j
''
nuisance.
The only community-mcmber declarations arc those provide by Euitrago.
..
lhese indicate a strong sense of comfort and safety within the zone.'@ There is nothinp
here suggesting the occupied territory or urban \var zone that existed in Aczrna.
Moreover. in a gang injunction case. an individual's criminal conduct is only material
it' it relates to thc activities of the gang as an cntit?. Not everything a gang member does
relates to the gang. If a gang member goes io the store to buy diapers for his newborn
child, such act no more relates to the gang than if that same gang-member sells drugs
10
get the money to buy the diapers. To show that an individual's crime relates to the gang
as an entity, plaintiff must show the gang directed these actions or benefited from them.
Plaintiff relies solely on police records of criminal activity, many of which do not even
contain allegations that the crimes were gang-related.2'
No authority stands for the
proposition that such police records can alone justify a gang injunction.
(3) Plaintijf has failed to present a likelihood ofraising clear. and convincingproof
thnt Rziitrago is an active member ofthe i2'orterios.
I
I
Plaintiff must show that each individual it seeks to bind is an active gang
j
I
Active gang membership means the named individual participated or acted in concert with
i
I
the alleged gang in a way that is "more than nominal. passive, inactive or purely I
'"See attached Exhibits B1 C. and D: Declarations of Iris Riblowitz. Roberto
Hernandez, and Eric Quezada.
" See arrest reports attached to Plaintiff-s Claim regarding Joshua DeLeon. IIcnrq
Hernandez. Jose Amador. Emesto Arrojo. Hector Barrera. Victor Cano. Ker l n C h a w .
.\ntonio Napolean. Alfred Sanche~.
tccl~nical."~"A Gang Task 1:orce.s gang mcmhership criteria ..doles] not ultimatel!
define the concept of membership in the gang abatement injunction context."'"
Here. Officer hlolina states that he considers the .'totality of sewral factors" to
establish gang membership. nith self-admission being most conclusive. There is no
evidence that Buitrago has ever claimed to be a gang member and in fact Buitrago
emphatically asserts he is not a member or aftiliat of the ~ortefios." Officer Molina also
considers criminal history. Buitrago has none."
Buitrago has no gang tattoo, and does
not often wear red," the color allegedly associated with Nortefios. Buitrago has no gangrelated moniker.
54
His nickname. "Tone," is an obvious abbreviation of his first namel
Antonio. and was given to him at age four by his Uncle Tony, or ..Rig
one."^^
Plaintiff claims Buitrago is an active Nortefio gang member because: Buitrago was at
25th and Capp Streets on March 25, 2006, Rolando Valladares's memorial senlice at 25th
and Capp Streets on March 29, 2006, and 24th and Shotwell Streets on-June 2, 2006; and,
Buitrago writes "gangsta rap" music lyrics.
Buitrago's childhood friend Rolando Valladares was killed on March 24, 2006.
Buitrago \\.as at the scene of Valladares's death. at 25th Street and Capp Street with his
" Id.:
see also People v. Bi.oderick Boys. .cl,prn. 149 Cal. App. 4th at 15 17,
E,~g/ebrec.ht,
85 Cnl. App. 4th at 126 1.
'I See Exhibit A: Declaration of Antonio Buitrago at p.l:15- 16.
32 I b i f .
'"
cousin. Antonio Garcia. and other mcrnbcrs in the community the
does not qualify as gang participation or an act in concert
\\
follow in^ day.j"~his
ith gang members.
On the morning of March 29. 2006. Buitrago attended a memorial service for
Valladares, along with many other community-members and Valladeres's mother, at the
location where Valladares was killed."
Attending a memorial service for a childhood
friend is not an act in concert \\ith gang members.
On the afternoon of June 2. 2006. Buitrago and fellow Precita Center volunteer,
Salvador Rodriguez. another named individual, attended a barbeque at a residence on
Shotwell street.j8 While walking to the local store on behalf of the event coordinator,
Buitrago heard someone yell, .'Freeze. ~ r u c h o . " ' ~ Officers Molina and Espinoza, guns
drawn, chased ~ o d r i g u e z . " Buitrago
~
returned to the Shotwell Street residence. Working
together at a community event cannot prove active gang membership any more than being
in the same high school English class could.
Plaintiffs use of Buitrago's music or status as a rapper to categorize him as a gang
member itself violates Buitrago's First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has long
recognized "[mlusic. as a form of expression and communication," that "is protected
under the First ~mendment."" Officer Molina claims ..Buitrago is a self-proclaimed
rapper who sings about selling narcotics in the street. possessing firearms. and raps about
See Exhibit A. Declaration of Antonio Buitrago at 7:3-10.
j' Id. at 7:ll-20.
jSSee Exhibit A. Declaration of Antonio Ruitrago at 8:10-24.
Ibid.
Id.
4I
Kird 1.. Rock Against Racism (1989) 49 1 U.S. 781. 790.
jh
"
Norteno gang culture.""
Molina also states that Buitrago is '.associated with Deep Sleep
Records, a Nortciio gang-related record label."'"
In fact, Buitrago is a recording artist and pcrformer who has written and performed
over thirty original songs.44 Two of these songs fall within a genre of hip hop music
known as -'gangsta rap." "Gangsta rap" has been described as "a form of hip hop music
that became the genre's dominant style in the 1990s. a reflection and product of the often
violent lifestyle of American inner cities afflicted with poverty and the dangers of drug
use and drug dea~ing."'~Gangsta rappers .'often defend themselves by claiming that they
are describing the reality of inner-city life, and that they are only adopting a character, like
an actor playing a role, which behaves in ways that they may not necessarily end~rse."~'
Their audiences blur class. ethnic and racial lines: -'The romanticization of the outlaw at
the centre of much of gangsta rap appealed to rebellious suburbanites as well as to those
who had firsthand experience of the harsh realities of the ghetto."47
Buitrago's two songs that mention gang life and criminal activity ''are not
autobiographical."'*
Plaintiff presents nothing to show otherwise. Buitrago has never
been arrested, much less convicted, for any crime."
''
one of plaintiffs police declarants
Declaration of OfJicer ,Molina, attached to plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and
Authorities. p. 35.
43 Id.
'"ee Exhibit A, Declaration of Antonio Buitrago at 420-23.
i~ Tucker v. Fischhein, (2001) 237 F.3d 275: 279. fn.1. citing the Encyclopedia
Britannica.
" See http://en.\vikipcdia.org/\vikii Ganesta rap
47
Tucker v. Fischbein, supra, 237 F.3d at 279.
IR
See Exhibit A. Declaration of Antonio Buitrago, at 5:6.
49
Id. at 1:l5.
eker obserked Buitrago participating in an! type of criminal activity. Buitrago recorded
these songs "to entertain and captivate his listeners." and "to nrite music that reflects
\\hat. . . fans wanted to hear."'"
Because Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Buitrago based in part on his exercise of free speech
as an artist, the First Amendment is implicated. 5 ' Because -.the chilling effect upon the
exercise of First Amendment rights may derive from the fact of the prosecution.
unaffected by the prospects of its success or failure." categorizing a singer-songwriter
who dabbles in the popular medium of gangsta rap as a real-life gangster runs the risk of
chilling much protected First Amendment activity.j2
If the state can label a person as a gang member based on the content of one part oi
his music (or novel, or poem, or standup comedy routine), a chilling effect on artists
whose focus is inner city lifel including gangs and gang activity, will follow. If Buitrago
is a gang member because the song mentions Norteiios or describes gang culture, are
Leonard Bemstein and Stephen Sondheim, who scored West Side Story and its tale of the
Jets and the Sharks, also gangsters?
Where an injunction undul) burdens protected speech. i~ijunctive relief must be
denied."
Thus, this court should not consider the government's vague and
unconstitutional conclusions concerning Buitrago's music in determining whether it has
met its burden to proye that he is a gang member
Id. at 5:6-8.
j' Ward v. Rock '-1 uinsr Racisnz. su ra. 491 ti S at 790 see also Plnfinzun Links
E I I N I Z1; ' Ad
~ C ! ~ . S I I I ~ meb
I . ~ball
~ 'C~ub (7006) 7006 U ,S . Dlst. L t.X l S 36652.
" See Domhro+tskiv. P$ster (1965) 380 I1.S. 479,487.
'j See e.g. Carroll v. Princess Anne ( 1 968) 393 U.S. 175: 183; Planned Parerd~ootl
ASS^ V . Oj1e~ntioi7Rescue (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 290.
"
p
Plaintiff on11 speculates that Buitrago is an active Nortefio member. Buitrago's o\\n
declaration amply refutes plaintiffs speculation.
N) The proposed iilj~~i7ction
is not autl70i.i-ed under C a l $ m ~ i a ' surtjbir. buritzess
practices law.
Plaintiff asserts that Nortefio is engaged in unfair and unlawful business under Business
and Professions Code section 17200'~which defines '.unfair competition' to include .-any
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or
misleading advertising and any act prohibited by the false advertising law.""
particular conduct is within section 17200 is a question of fact."
Whether
Here, Plaintiffs
complaint summarily concludes, without citation, that the Nortefio gang commits a variety
of criminal acts for business purposes.
To invoke the unfair competition law. plaintiff must show that Nortefio is a business.
Instead, Plaintiff alleges Nortefio members sell drugs and commit violent crimes. This
criminal activity, itself, is not a business. In People v. E WA.P., the Court of Appeal
found the defendant corporation liable under the Unfair Competition Law, and suggested
that application of the law to persons engaged in purely criminal enterprise would be a
..misapplication of the law.""
With no showing that Norteno is a ..business," Business
and Prol'essions code section 17200 does not appl) .
" S e e Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities at p. 1 1:3-19.
'' Bus. &. Prof. Code S 17200 c.t seq.
"People v. E G X P (1989) 106 Cal.App.3d 330.
j-1ci. at 321.
B. Plaintiff has failed to show that the balance of harms tips in its favor.
The court must neigh "the interim harm that the plaintiff is likel) to sustain if the
injunction \\ere denied" against "the harm the defendant is likely to suffer if the
prehninar). injunction were issued."'"~'he
injunction nil1 significantly harm Buitrago,
fracturing his familial relationships. barring his participation in educational, emploqment.
religious.
cultural, and positive
community acti~ities. and subjecting him to
unconstitutional restrictions on his freedom of speech and association. The vague and
overbroad provisions of the proposed preliminary injunction will subject Buitrago to
arbitrary and unjustified police harassment
( I j Btlitrago 's farnil], relatiomhips and responsibilities will be harmed by an
injunction.
Buitrago and Antonio Garcia, another named individual, are first c o u ~ i n s . ' ~Buitrago
and Garcia are close and refer to each other as .'brother."60 If the injunction issues, they
will be prohibited from associating with one another.
Buitrago visits a family friend Tracy Brown, the Director of the Precita Center, and her
family. who live in the zone. at least twice weekly and regularly attends gatherings
there.61 The injunction ~vouldprohibit Buitrago from visiting his Aunt Tracy and her
famil) at night and nould prexent him from attending the family gatherings that typically
extend until
late-evening."
i s Acunu, supr-ci, 14. CaI. 4th at 1109.
59
"'
See Exhibit 4. [ k l a r a t i o n of Antonio Buitrago at 2: 15-19
Id at 2:18-22.
1~1at 3:9- 16.
h2
/d
1-0
Buitrago's aunt Gladys Escobar also \vorks at the Precita Center. Buitrago visits her
there frequently and helps her transport kids who live in the zone to activities at the
Precita ce11ter.@
Buitrago is responsible for picking up his seventeen-year-old sister tiom work three
days a week at the Mission Girls Center in the zone," his grandmother at her church
within the zone. and for d r i ~ i n ghis aunt Lorena from work at San Francisco General
Hospital to her residence in the zone.
Buitrago spends time with two other cousins at their home
011
Shotwell Street. in the
zone. They often spend time outside chatting amongst theinselves. and with other family
neighbor^.^'
and
None of these activ-ities will be possible under the injunction. The injunction will
harm Buitrago's familial relationships and obligations.
(2) Blritrago will be prohibited fi-onz participating in educational, emnplojwent,
religious, cultural, a i d ot/?erpositive cornmztnily activities.
The injunction will prevent Buitrago from continuing his education. In an effort to
better support his family, Buitrago is studying for his GED. attending classes twice a week
in the
His current cinployment requires him to go \\herever he is dispatched to tow illegally
parked cars. Buitrago is not at libcrt! to decline to to\\ a aehicle for fear of violating the
injunction's association or other
63
restriction^.^'
See Exhibit A. Declaration of Antonio Buitrago at 33-8.
""d. at 2:l-l-17.
65
Id. at 3 3 - 2 6 ,
hb
Itf. at 5 2 8 - 6 2 .
I
:
'1-hc in,iunction will also bar Buitraso from the annual cultural and community events
within the Mission safety zone. such as Dia de los Muertos. Dia de los Muertos. a holida!.
celebrating and honoring the lives of the deceased. is celebrated every year in the Mission
district with a street processional and prayer altar. Last Noven~ber.the processional
proceeded through the zone at 7:00 pm on 24th and Bryant Streets, and ended at the
Festi\:als of Altars in Garfield Park at 26th and I-Iarrison Streets.
The event ended at
11:00 pm. The Dia de Los Muertos processional has become especially important to
Buitrago since the passing of his childhood friend Valladares.
Buitrago volunteers at the Precita Center, overseeing activities such as basketball
games with at risk youth who may be in gangs and helping transport kids to the Precita
Center for planned activities. The injunction would force Buitrago to quit his volunteer
job at the Precita Center because it regularly places him in direct contact with youth who
are gang-members or gang-affiliated.
Buitrago will be substantially harmed if he is denied the opportunity to participate in
the aforementioned educational, employment, religious. cultural and community activities.
(3) The c o r n m u n i ~will suffer more ifthe injunction is imposed than otherwise.
Declarations from zone-residents, conlmunity-based organizers. and gang-suppression
tactics expert Judith Greene show that the preliminary injunction will itself harm the
community.
,' /
6-
i
See Exhibit A: Declaration of Antonio Buitrago at 6 3 - 1 5 ,
(7.
L'ugzte and oiwhrouti provisions o f the proposed pl-elimii7ar): illjwxtioiz will
;
.slihject Latino males it1 the cotnmuiiity to orbirrmy and zinj~tst$ed I~arasstnen~
ji-om the police.
I
Community residents are already affected by apparent police harassment of Latino
males in the zone:
Iris Biblowitz obsened police stop a group of Latino males at 25th Street and Capp
Street, one block from her residence. force them to kneel for forty-tive minutes, then, not
finding any evidence of criminal activity, let the group go free.
Roberto Hernandez
-
68
a lifelong Mission district resident -- has been stopped up to
four times a \veek by San Francisco Police while driving his 1964 Chevy ~ r n ~ a l a .The
~'
harassment was so unbearable that Hernandez has permanently garaged his car.
Eric Quezada sees cars driven by Latinos being stopped by the police so frequently he
feels police are permitted to detain people for no reason at all.''
Reasonable suspicion for a stop requires articulable facts to suspect that criminal
activity is afoot. An injunction arguably gives officers reasonable suspicion to stop any
group of two or more Latino men in the zone to investigate whether the injunction is being
violated. The threat of the injunction has already led to harassment.
Community organizer Henry Morales was pulled over in the zone on August 20.2007.
at 26th and Treat ~treets." Police asked Morales if he w-as on the injunction list, if he was
a Nortefio, questioned him about his religion. and asked whether he had any guns or
weapons in his car.72 hlorales felt police were using the injunction as an excuse to
racially profile and harass
"'See Exhibit B , Declaration of Iris Biblowitz at p.2: 13-17.
See I31ibit C, Declaration of Roberto Hernandez at p.1:23-25.
" S e e Exhibit D , Declaration of Eric Quezada.
7I
See attached Declaration of Henr) >lorales.
- See attached Declaration of IIenc Morales.
-.
' Id
hll
-.
-LIP\ in opposiliun i o PI:tk!lllit's E x Fane ;\ppIlcailon L ; h i
So C(iC47-464-4Qj
-
16-
In July 2007. at 24th and Alabama Streets in the zone, a van of on-duty Community j
!
Response Net~vork[TRN.'] outreach norkers was detained by the Gang Task ~ o r c e . ' ~
Althou~hCKN's Case Management Coordinator. Luis Aroche, showed the officer his
~
i
I
CRN identification card and explained that they were on-duty community workers. police
invoked the injunction and ordered the CRN staff out of the van, forced them to remove
--
their shirts to expose any tattoos. handcuffed them, and forced them to sit on the curb."
After thirty minutes in handcuffs. the CRN staff was re~eased.'~CRN Director Soccoro
Gamboa fears that the injunction \\.ill sanction this type of haras~ment.'~
On July 13, 2007, police entered one of Mission Neighborhood Centers and
intimidated clients."
Director Ruiz fears those in need will be discouraged from
obtaining vital support services if they feel intimidated when doing so.'9
An injunction will only increase police harassment of law-abiding citizens in the zone.
b. A gang injunction implemented without community input substantially harms the
commurzity by undermining its positiveprograms.
Gang injunctions reinforce negative images of entire communities and run counter to
the positive youth-development agenda that has proven to reduce crime.80 Gang
membership is deterred by funding programs that promote jobs, education: healthy
'
communities and lower barriers for former gang members to reintegrate into ~ o c i e t y . ~An
injunction will deprive community-based organizations like CRN, the Central American
Resource Center ["CARECEN"]. and Mission Neighborhood Centers ["MNC"] of their
ability to effectively serve the safety zone community.
" S e e attached Declaration of Socorro Gamboa. CRN Director.
-' Ihid.
'"
Id
-" Id.
'\%e Decla~ationof Santiago Ruiz at p. 3: 11-13.
:s Id.
Sil
See Exhibit t. Declaration of Judith Greene at p. 13.
''
Ihiti.
',
!
,
CRN. a community organization that coordinates crisis response. case management.
and strcct-level outreach services to at-risk !.o~ith in the Mission District, currently
provides services to at least five individuals named in the proposed injun~tion.~'
CARECEN operates the Second Chance Tattoo Removal program. removing gang-related
tattoos and offering a comprehensive case management component that provides
participants bvith educational services, job training. and employment placement.83 Often.
groups of people wait together to receive CARECEN services. MNC provides a \vide
variety of educational. social, and employment s e r ~ i c e s . ~ 'Those seeking help cannot
control who else is obtaining s e r v i ~ e s . ~ '
The injunction \\.ill discourage those most in need from utilizing these and other
positive programs if participation exposes them to arrest and incarceration. CRN, MNC,
and CARECEN -- all city-fundedx6 -- will have to alter or terminate their programs to
insure that named individuals do not associate with one another. The result will be a net
decrease in programs and clients served. At-risk jouth and their community will suffer.
Plaintiff presents nothing to show that this gang injunction is more effective than
community-based intervention. Before issuing an injunction that will curtail communitybased programs \vith a pro\en track record and significantly restrict individual liberties.
there must be e\ idence that, in the absence of this injunction, even greater harms will fall.
The inefficacy of gang injunctions as a law enforcement tactic has been shova8'
These injunctions do little to improve community life and have, in some cases. made
" See Exhibit F, Declaration of Socorro Gamboa. CRN Director, at p. 3:14-15.
" Ibid.
"'See Exhibit G, Declaration of Henry Morales at p. 7:3-6.
" S e e Exhibit H. Declaration of Santiago Ruiz.
85 Id
86
See Exhibits F. G. H, Declarations of Morales. Gamboa, and Ruiz.
See Exhibit E.
Declaration of Judith Greene: Gang Wars: The Fui1zir.e o f
Enforcetlzent Tmrics and the 1Veedjbr Efective Public Safen/ Strategies. Justice Policy
Institute. Judith Greene and Kevin Pranis. July 17. 2007. at <http:,'ijust1cepo1icy.org>.
8'
things worse. X X
This research. combined bvith the declarations by community-based
organizations \\hose anti-gang work will be undermined by the proposed in.junction.
shows that the conimunity will be harmed if the injunction is imposed.
3. Any reliminary injunction must be narrowly tailored to comply with
cons ~tutionaland equitable mandates.
P
To be constitutional, the proposed order must "burden no more speech than necessary
to serve a significant government interest.3.89
..It is a
familiar doctrine of equity that the
scope of the injunction will be limited to the wrongful act sought to be prevented."90
Here, plaintiffhas failed to show that the proposed injunction is so narrowly tailored.
Provisions (h) Association, (g) Gang Signs, Red Garments, Gang Symbols, (i)Curfew,
and ( f ) Trespassing each enjoin more activity, lawfiil and unlawful, than necessary to
abate the claimed nuisance, lack a sufficient nexus between the alleged harm and the
proposed restrictions, and impact more First Amendment activity than necessary to meet
legitimate governmental interests.
A. Prohibition of Association
Plaintiff proposes to prohibit any two named individuals from: "standing, sitting.
walking, driving, gathering, or appearing a n y h e r e in the public view or any place
accessible to the public . . . excluding: 1 ) when all individuals are inside of a school in
class or on school business: and 2) when all indi\-iduals are inside a church."9L This
restriction on association is too severe.
An injunction "may not burden the constitutional right of association more than is
necessary to serve the significant go\-ernment interest at stake ..."
When fundamental
'"bid.
"
Acuna; 14 Cal.4th 1 1 15. citinz :Madslsen v. Women's Health Center (1994) 512 U.S.
753. 76 I .
4,1
.,\hgill Bt-os, v. Blcig-. SenYce Etnployees ' Int 'I CS7ion ( 1 912) 20 Cal.2d 506- 5 12.
OSC 3t p. 17: 1-7.
L>2
=Ic21i7a,14 Cal.4th at. 1 1 15: 1120-1 122.
"
rights are invohed, only a "narrowly dralvn, constitutionally sensitive response" that is
..focused on the harm at hand" \\-ill be upheld.y'
T\vo kinds of association receive First Amendment protection: '-intimate" association.
such as those affiliation that "attend the creation and sustenance of a family," and
"instrumental" association. those affiliations that are involved in the exercise of religious
and political expression and activity." l o t h types are impacted here.
In Acuna. a similarly-worded association restriction involved First Amendment
interests and the i k d s e n standard of burdening no more speech than necessary applied.'5
The Acuna court relied heavily on the fact that no political, familial, or religious activity
took place among the alleged gang members within the four-block safety zone.y6
That is not the case here. The proposed Mission safety zone is sixty square blocks. and
Buitrego does volunteer work in the area, attends cultural and religious events, some of
which are held outdoors and are open to the public, and has over thirty relatives who live
in the zone.97 Buitrago's first cousin, Garcia, is a named individual. They call each othet
'.brother."98 Buitrago has been friends with Antonio Napoleon. another named individual,
99
since they and Garcia played on the same Little League team in the zone at age six.
Moreover, because the provision applies to association inside any building "accessible
by or to the public, ..Iflo the act of walking alone into any store: restaurant. business or
93 Waters v. B a n y (D.D.C. 1989) 71 1 FSupp. 3125; 1135: Carroll v. President cy
Princess Anne (1968) 393 U . S . 175, 183-83 ("An order issued in the area of First
Amendment rights must bc couched in the narro\\cst terms that will accomplish the pinpointed objecthe permitted by constitutional mandate and ...must be tailored as precisely
as possible to the exact needs of the case.")
"'Id. at 11 10. citing Roberts v. W7iretlSlnte.r Joycees (1984) 468 U.S. 609. 609.
4'.;
Acuna. supro. I4 Cal. 4th at 1121-23. citing A21udset7 v Women's Ifeaitk Cei~rer
(1993) 512 U S . 753. 761.
97
See Exhibit A. Declurotion ofAntonio Buitri7p. at 2:23-26
lo' at 2:18-22.
"Id, at 4: 1-7.
9s
""'
OSC at p. 17:2.
meeting inside the zone would present a risk of violating the injunction depending on who
else was present at the time.
Ruitrago is at risk for violating the association provision for his participation in
ordinary, lawful. and even desirable activities. like attending GED classes. doing
volunteer bvork. and helping his aunt and sister commute to work. The greater the size ot
the safety zone, the greater the impact of the injunction on non-gang activity and
association. The proposed association proc.ision would effectively prohibit named gang
members from attending family picnics, weddings. and funerals, and from working.
learning. \vorshipping, and shopping in the zone. Under the proposed injunction the
alleged gang members are likely to "associate" by running into each other at the
supermarket, on the way to school or church, or when seeking a variety of positive
services offered by community-based organizations. Because the size of the safety zone
is fifteen times that in Acuna. Aczrna does not authorize the proposed injunction.
The association provision here limits protected activities in areas that are unrelated to
the purported nuisance. Exhibits A and B attached to plaintiffs memorandum of points
and authorities indicate that the alleged "gang activity" is clustered at one location.
Mission and 24Ih Streets, with several smaller clusters at Shotwell and 24Ih Streets and
South Van Ness A\:enue and 26Ih Street. Without requiring some nexus between activities
in the entire safety zone and the alleged nuisance, or by broadening the exceptions, the
proposed injunction will enjoin more associational activity than necessary. and discourage
alleged members from engaging in activities to better their community and themselves.
B. Prohibition of Red Clothing
Plaintiffs proposed provision (g) \\.odd enjoin -Wearing red garments" in the safet)
zone.
101
This blanket prohibition burdens more exprcssi\,e activity than necessaq to
achieve the purported goals of this in.junction. Applying this .\fadsen balancing test. the
1/11
OSC. at p. 1625-26.
Englebrecl~Court upheld a "narrowly drawn prohibition" on "the wearing of clothing
which bears the gang name or letters that spell out the gang name. ..i02
Unlike the injunction in Englebrecht. the clothing restriction is not limited to clothing
which bears the name or letters of thc Norteiios. There is a limitless list of expressiw
reasons why a person might wear the color red -- and. alternatively, situations in which
one might wear red for no expressive purpose at all -- none of which have any connection
to the Norteiios. A 49ers fan. a Republican. a patriotic American on the Fourth of July or
an individual celebrating Cinco de Mayo or Carnival in the Mission, might all reasonably
wear the color red to serve an expressive purpose entirely unrelated to gang affiliation.
Moreol.er, "[ilt is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for
vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined."'03 This provision does not define
"red garment." Is a red garment one with a red stripe or red lettering? Is a red handbag a
red garment? Is a red political button pinned to one's shirt a red garment? Accordingly.
the "red garment" provision is void for vagueness
-
it gives inadequate notice to the
affected parties of what conduct is proscribed and leaves too much discretion in the hands
of police officers, thereby encouraging "arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement."lO'
C i p of Chicago v. Morales (1999) 537 li.S. 41. 56: see also Kolrnder v. Luwsorz ;
(1983)461 C.S. 352. 357.
1 ti4
C. Prohibition of Gang Signs and Gang Synlbols
Provision [g] of the proposed injunction also includes "[fllashing gang signs . . . o r
showing any gang symbols. including '14'. 'Norte'. or 'XIV'."
and "gang symbols" are undefined.
The terms "gang signs"
This prohibition shares the same constitutional
defects as the prohibition on "red garments"
-
it burdens far more expressive activity than
is necessary and it is unconstitutionally vague.
The prohibition on "gang signs" and "gang symbols" is considerably more indefinite
than its counterpart in Englebreclzt. ' 0 5 The Englebrecht injunction ..specificallv tlescribea
[the prohibited] signs and gestures. ..I06
By contrast. Plaintiffs proposed prohibition fails to describe what gestures would
constitute "gang signs."
The provision includes a nonexclusive list of three allegedly
Nortefio gang symbols. By failing to limit the gang sign and symbol provision, plaintiff
seeks an injunction which includes the signs and symbols of any gang and does nothing to
notice those bound by its terms of what is prohibited or to guide police discretion in its
enforcement.
It is hard to imagine a provision more susceptible to street level Ian
enforcement abuse and overreaching.
Nonspecific regulations on "gang" synbols have been found unconstitutional even in
the school setting where restrictions on expression are afforded more defcrence.
Stephenson
1'.
In
Davenport Comnzz~nifyScIzo01 District. the Eighth Circuit found 1 oid for
\:agucness a prohibition on "gang related acti\.ities such as display of 'colors.' symbols.
signals. signs. etc.." because the nord "gang" n a s "the sole adjecti~efor the prohibited I
"'Enger-hrechr, supra,
""In'
88 Cd.App.4th 1236
at 1243- 12-14 [emphasis added].
'colors, symbols. signals. signs. ete. ...I(/- Subsection (g) in the proposed Norteiio
in.junction suffers from the same defect. "Gang s!mbols . . . take many forms and are
constantly changing. ..
l0S
f [ere. as in Stepherrson. the gang symbol and gang sign
prohibition is "fatally vague," because "the term 'gang"' fails to give adequate notice to
those bound by the injunction and because this lack of specificity impermissibly allows
.'local police unfettered discretion to decide what represents a gang symbol."lO'
Provision (g) also "suffers from fatal overbreadth" because it is not limited to symbols
and signs known by those bound "to have a gang eonnotati~n.""~ In reviewing a
condition of probation, which involves a lesser standard of judicial scrutiny than must be
applied to a civil injunction, the Court of Appeal in People v. Lopez modified the
condition to apply "gang insignia, moniker or other markings of gang significance known
to be S I K I I by dt+n'nnt.
""I
D. The Curfew Provision
Plaintiffs proposed curfew provision (j) would ban alleged gang members from public
streets and sidewalks in the safety zone after 10:OO p.m. until "sunrise on the following
day" \\ith limited exceptions for religious events, medical appointments, employment, and
ioi
Sfeplzensotz v. Davenport Comtmrnily Sch. Dist. (8th Cir. 1997) 110 F.3d
1311.
I08
Id at 1309: see also Lrrnxrtn 1.. Y e w Jersey (1939) 306 U S . 451.453-454.458
109
Id. at 1310: see ?ilornles, 527 U.S. at 56.
' I n People v. Lopez (1998) 66 Cal.App.4tli 615. 629.
' I ' Id. at 625 (emphasis added).
emergencies. This curfcv impacts the constitutionally protected rights of free exprcssion.
freedom oTassociation. and free movement."'
In lVunez v. S m Dicgo. the Ninth Circuit struck dotvn a juvenile curfen ordinance as an
overbroad restriction on constitutional rights. e\cn thoush the government has great
latitude with minors. I I3 The ~Vunezcourt relied on llbtrrs v. Barry. where a federal
district court invalidated an overbroad curfew la\\ because it made thousands of innocent
juveniles prisoners at night in their homes. I I4 Here, the curfew applies only to adults, and.
for those residing in the safety zone. it imposes virtual nighttime house arrest.
The curfew provision fails to meet the Madsen test of burdening no more First
Amendment activity than is necessary to accomplish the legitimate governmental
purpose. 115 In the Oakdale Mob injunction case. plaintiff presented the identical curfe~v
provision in its proposed i n j u n ~ t i o n . " ~At the hearing, this court expressed concerns
about the individual rights affected by such a provision and the lacking show of necessity.
and thus ordered a narro~ver provision that enjoined the named individuals from
"[lloitering in any place between midnisht on any day and 5 3 0 a m . of the immediate
next day." This narrower curfew pro~isionwas consistent with California precedent. as
curfelv laws focusing on "loitering" are constitutionally less suspect than curfev
ordinances that prohibit any ..presence" after hours.'"
See 'Vunez v Ci& ofSa12 Diego (9th Cir. 1997) l 14 F. 3d 935.940.944 & fn. 6.
' I' Id. at 946.
1I4
Wnters v. B a n y (D.D.C. 1989) 71 1 F. Supp 1125.
'I' See Nunez. 114 F.3d at 946.
I"
116
117
See Order to S h o ~ vCause Re: Preliminary Injunction. Case No. 06-4565 17. p. 3.
See In re firilcy C (1972) 28 Cal. 12pp. 3d 747. 756-57.
The proposed curfew provision is also invalid because plaintiff has not shown a nexus
between the c ~ ~ r f ehours
w
and the alleged nuisance. Examination of the incidents listec
by plaintiff sho~vsthat only approsimately one-quarter occurred during curfelv hours.
Finally. the curfew exceptions are too narrow to permit lawful and constitutionallq
protected activities within the zone.
The proposed injunction leaves forbidder
constitutionally protected political, and community meetings and activities. as well a:
other nighttime activities such as sports and recreation, family dinners and gatherings."'
The curfew provision will impact Buitrago's employment and his rights to fulfill hi:
familial obligations, participate in family functions, cultural: and community activitie:
that are within the First Amendment's protections.
The absence of a broader '-First Amendment exception" covering expressive and
associational activities was one ground on which the Ninth Circuit struck down the Nunez
curfew, explicitly rejecting the argument that "a broad First Amendment expressior
exception ~vould effectively reduce a curfew ordinance to a useless d e ~ i c e . " " ~ The
curfew provision in the proposed injunction similarly paints with too broad a brush in its
attempt to impose a nighttime ban on lawf~dand protected activities.
E. The Trespassing Provision
Plaintiffs proposed provision (t) restricts presence on any private property without the
prior written consent of the o\\ner or \\bile in the physical presence of the owner or lawful
resident.
This prwision enjoins more acthities than necessary to abate the allcgcd
nuisance and interferes u ith Ian ful associat~onalactit ities.
~
In contrast to the small. four-block area at issue in the Oakdale Mob injunction. tht.
zone in the Mission encompasses sixty square blocks. It includes t\vo public housing
pro-jects, numerous schools, hundreds of stores, thousands of homes, multiple medical
clinics. and numerous and varied service providers.
Plaintiff has not shown thnl
trespassing is such a problem within the sixty block area as to necessitate such a rigid
restriction encon~passingall residences and all commercial property within this large area.
Innocent but punishable visitation would include visiting a cousin without the prior
mitten consent of one's aunt, or being at one's place of employment without the prior
written consent or presence of the owner.
The inclusion of San Francisco Housing
Authority property within the scope of the "No Trespassing'' provision means that a
person bound by the injunction (including a resident of the public housing project) could
violate its terms by simply walking through a public housing complex to reach a family
member's apartment without the prior written permission of the San Francisco Housing
Authority. And the "trespassing" provision does not except emergencies of any kind.
The trespassing provision is unconstitutionally overbroad.
F. The Drug and Paraphernalia Provision
Provision (d) prohibits using or possessing (or remaining in the presence of anyone
using or possessing) controlled substances or related paraphernalia. Although using and
simple possession of illegal drugs are crimes. there is no evidence that drug use or simple
possession by alleged gang membcrs is gang-relatcd activity. This provision must fail.
!!i
G. The Graffiti and Graffiti Tools Provision
Proposed provision (c) seeks to enjoin "[dlamaging. defacing. or marking any public
or private property of another, or possessing spray paint cans. felt tip marker; or other
graffiti tools as dciined in Penal Codc section 594.2."
So long as this provision
incorporates all of the elements o r Penal Code section 594.2, including the intent
requirement. Buitrago does not here contest the graffiti provision.
Conclusion
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Buitrago without presenting anything other than speculation to
show that he is a gang member.
Despite the glaring lack of proof, plaintiff would
terminate Buitrago's GED studies, jeopardize his employment as well as that of his sister
and aunt, and cut Buitrago off from the community where he grew up and where thirty of
his family members live, including those closest to him. Plaintiff would also singlehandedly decimate the impact of community-based organizations whose work has been
proven to provide gang-members and would-be gang members with plausible alternatives.
The latest research has shown the gang injunctions do not work and there is no
evidence suggesting that this injunction is desired by the community it will so deeply
affect. Under these circumstances, the court should not permit plaintiff to impose its illconccived '-solution" on sixty square blocks of the Mission District.
Dated:
September 5. 2007
7f-3
-
Jeff Adachi
Public Defender
Attorney for Antonio Buitrago
Proof of Service
I. the undersigned, say:
I am over eighteen years of age and not a parh to the above action. My business address
s 555 Seventh Street, San Francisco, California 94103.
On
2 0 0 7 , I served copies of the attached on the following by placing a
rue and complete copy in the receptacle for interoffice mail:
Office of the City Attorney
Michael Weiss
Deputy City Attorney
City and County of San Franci sco
1390 Market Street, Sixth Floor
San Francisco. California 94102
I declare under penalty of pe jury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on
, 7007. at San Francisco, California.
EXHIBIT A
DECLARATION OF ANTONIO "TONE" BUITRAGO
EXHIBIT " "
1. ;\ntonio blilrtin Buitrago. declare under penalty of pcrjur). as folio\\-s:
1.
1 aln the defendant in the abol-e-captioned marter.
2.
The Plaintift: the People of the State of California. ex re]. Dennis J.
Herrcra. as the City Attorne! for the Cit? and County of San Imncisco. filed a motion
seeking an injunction against the Nortefio gang. and up to 500 Doe defendants.
3.
I have been joined as one of the defendants \vho will be subject to the
xeliminary injunction.
4.
If granted, my constitutionally protected daily activities within the propose1
Protected Zone ("Zone") will be swerely cui-tailed or absolutely prohibited.
5.
I \\-as born September 21, 1981. in Daly City, CA. However. 1 \+as wised
n the Mission District of Sun Francisco and have lived there for most of my life. I
:urrently reside at, 225 Morse St, San Francisco. CA 941 12.
6.
1 do not have a criminal history. I am not a Norteiio gang member and I do
lot affiliate with the Nortefio gang. 1 do not have a pang-related moniker.
7
I .
I am five feet. eleven inches tall, and weigh 320 pounds. I have a l w y s
wen very hcav). even as a child. When 1 \\as four years old. my uncle. Tony Buitrago,
d s o known as Big Tone, began to call me -'Tonep. Big Tone, \\ho is also a large man.
;ave me h e nickname because of my strong physical resemblance to him. My family
~ n dfricnds. including my mother. call me Tone.
8.
Due to nl? large size. 1 ma!. also be affectionately retkrred to as. "Fat
Tone". Except in professional contexts, such as job interviews. I al\\ays introduce n~ysel
.o people as Tone.
9
My parents are named Norma ~Vcndoraand Jaimc Buitragn. The) are
ieparated. bl! father inmigrated to the lJnited Statcs ti-om Nicnragua and my mother
nas born i n the ijnitcd States. She is of Peruvian descent.
10.
\I>. n~otlierNorma currently \\-orbs 3s a commercinl accountant for "Coiliri
..
Wnrchouse. a company that sells residential and commercial building products. Jaime
Buitrago liws in the Excelsior District and works in shipping and receiving. I do not
hcep in close contact with my fither. 114 parents are not in a gang. they haw never becn
in a gang. and the) do not affiliate Ivith the Nortefio gang.
1 1.
I havc three sisters: Jasmina Buitrago. Anastasia Buitrago, and Angelica
Guevara. Angelica Guevara is Norma's daughter: shc is six years old. Anastasia
Buitmgo is Jamie's daughter; she is elmen years old. My fi11l-bloodsister: Jastnina
Buitrago is 17 years old. Jasmina and Angelica reside with our mother. Norma. in the
Excelsior District.
12.
I am closest to p m g e r sister, Jasmina. I am very protective of her. She
sonietirnes accuses me of trying to be a father figure to her. Admittedly. I constantly
admonish her not to stay out late and to choose her friends wisely. I also regularly
encourage her to finish high school and to continue on to college.
13.
Three days during the week, 1 am responsible for picking up Jasmina from
her job at the hlission Girls Center, located within the Zone at 3007 24"' Street. Jasmina
so~nctiines\vorl<s until 7:00 pm. Since our mother goes to bed by 7:00 pm, I regularly
provide Jastnina her with her only reliable mode oftransportation.
14.
Although I have no biological brothers, I consider my first cousin. Antonio
"Little Tone" Garcia, to be more like a brother than a cousin. We have been very close
since childhood. Our close bond developed because Antonio Garcia and I are the only
boys in our respective immediate families. loday, \ve still publicly hold ourselves out as
brothers.
15.
1 am a part of a \.cry large extended family. My great-grandlither. also
naincd Antonio Buitrago, had 42 children. Many of my extended relatives liw in the Sa1Francisco 13a! Area. I n the '\.fission alone. 1 h a w approximatelq 30 extended fh~nil).
inembers on 1ny father's side.
16.
'\.I) aunt. L.orcna Oropeza. \\arks in the Zone at San Francisco General
Fluspiral. She is the EKG I>epart~nc.ntSuper~isor.I frequently pick her up alicr work
and dri1.e her across to\vii to her residence in the hlission. at 243 San Carlos Street. I'he
most con\cnient route from the hospital to Aunt Lorcna's home is through the Zone.
17.
My Aunt Gladys Escobnr currentl! \vorks as a counselor at the Precita
Center. located in the Mission at 534 Precita Avenue.
[
Srequentl> \;isit her at \vork and
regularly wlunteer at the Precitc~Center. My volunteer tasks include overseeing
x t i \ itics such as basketball games. and playing video games with .'at risk" !o~rth\\ho
may be in gangs. 1 also accompan? Aunt Gladys while she picks up children \vho li1.c in
the Zone and transports them to the Precita Center for planned activities.
18.
The Director of the Precita Center is Tracy Bro\vn. She is a very close
Ruitrago family friend. I refer to her as. "Aunt Tracy". She lives in the rniddle of the
Zone at 845 Alabama Street: betneen 21" Street and 22""treet.
I visit Aunt Tracy and
her famil) at least twice per week. 1 also know several of the families that live in Aunt
Tracv's neighborhood. 1 attend most of the famil!. gatherings at Aunt Tracy's house. In
any given year. there are approxi~natelyten family gatherings at Aunt Tracy's house. Orspecial holidays, such as Fourth of July, family gatherings a l w a p run past 10:OO pin and
sornetirnrs continue until Midnight.
19.
M>.grandmother's name is Julia Hernandez. Although she lives in Colina,
she is a member of St. Peter's Catholic Church located within the Zone on Alabama
Street, betmeen 24'" Street and 25"' Street. She attends church services arid functions at
St. Peter's several times per week. I regularlv pick up lnq grandmother after church
services and other weekly activities. 1 will occasionally \!sit in front of the church if I
ilrrii.e before church service has ended, or if one of my grandmother's activities runs late
30.
1 also have t\vo cousins. Michael Guerrn and Richard Guerra_ivho both li1.c
in the Zone at 845 Sl~ot\\cllStreet. betivecn 23" Street and 24''' Street. M \
1 isits
with
111:
cousins sometimes include spending time in itont of their house chatting xvith famil! or
Sriends in the community.
21.
41) favorite Nicaraguan restc~urantis the Rcd Balloon. It is a Buitrago
family fi~voritclocated in the %one at 2763 blission Strccr, at 21th Street.
72.
In addition to spending time with liumil!. 1 also spend time \vith friends anc
d
such as :\ntonio
.cquaintances in the Zone. 1 met man! 0fmy c h i l d l l ~ ~friends.
hpoleon. playing little league baseball in Mission Pla!pruund Park. .At the age of six,
h o n i o Garcia. .Antonio Napoleon. and I a11 p l a p d on the same littlc leaguc baseball
e m . Many people in the communit!. including Ilanny Ruiz. Mission Pla>ground Parh
Xrector. I\ ;~tchedthe three of us grow up together playing baseball and basketball in the
)ark.
23,
Although not on the baseball team: in!. best friend Rolando 'Chino"
Jalladares often came to watch my baseball games. As children. Rolando and I enjoyed
he same activities. including basketball and swimming. As an adolescent. I continued tc
hcus my energies on playing football, soccer. and baseball. In high school. 1 played
ootball for McAteer High School.
24.
As Rolando grew older he spent less time on sports and more time with
&herfriends. In high school, Rolando joined the Bryant Street gang. He acquired a
attoo on his back that spelled, "Bryant Street", to affirm his allegiance to the gang. As
{oungctdults. Rolando and I remained close friends. I was not influenced by Rolando's
~ersonalchoice to join a gang. and Rolando understood that my priorities were spending
inie Ivith my family and playing sports.
25.
Despite our growing differences, Rolando and I still had many hobbies in
:ommon. Onc ofthose hobbies was creating and recording music. Although I ha1.e
vritten up\vards o f 3 0 songs on many different topics. "gangsta rap" was the type of
nusic that Rolando and 1 enjoyed recorded together. We recorded two sangsta rap song:
'Block Ne\vs" and "Red Rapgin".
26. Gangsta rap is a subgenre of "tiip-hop" music. It generally includcs
:lcctronicall! created bass lines featuring "rap" s t ~ l e dl!rics that focus on urban street
ik. The subjccts of the songs ma! include. acquiring large quantities of money. l'nnc!
, x s . gang acti\it!.. selling and using drugs. homicides and promiscuit!.
77.
'fhe songs '~DlockXe\\s" and "Red Iiapgin" \\ere on Rolando's album.
'Block New". which was released February 2006 on Rolando's label. Deep Sleep
Records. I'he albuni was rated as the n ~ ~ m bone
e r albu~nof the year by on-line users of
h c w h i t e . Siccness.net. a nebsite that is dedicated 10 underground "gangsta rap".
28.
Consistent with the themes in gangsta rap, mj verses in both songs mentio~
:he cornmission of a homicide. promiscuity. gang activity and time spent in custody.
However, these songs are not autobiographical in nature. My lyrics were written to
xptilate my listeners. hly goal was to \\.rite music that reflected what gangsta rap fans
bvantc.dto hear. I b e l i e x Rolando and I attained that goal. Approximately 5.000 copies
sf Rolando's album have been sold. It may be purchased on-line at.
~v\\~\v.cdbaby.corn!cd/pistolduce,
for $12.97.
29.
Sadly. Rolando did not live long enough to see his small record label
-eceive local recognition from the success of "Block News".
M \best friend, Rolilndo
Valladares died on March 25,2006. All of the albums' proceeds are used to support
iiolando's family.
30.
Since Rolando's passing. I have tried to stay connected with my other
:hildhood friends and high school acquaintances in the community. Some of the young
nen 1 know have started families and find dignity in their chosen occupation, while
sthers tind self-affirmation i n being a part of a gang. Regardless of their chosen paths, I
~l\vaysacknowledge my old friends and acquaintances when I see them in the
:ommunity. I also make an effort to spend time t ~ i t hmy closest friends at least twice a
nonth.
3 1.
Today: my primary focus is on n ~ yGve-year-old daughter. Alyssa, and her
nothcr. Marina. One of the primary reasons \vhy I \vould ne\!er join a gang is because I
xnnt to spend my energy on being a good father to my daughter. Alyssa.
32.
Xlarina and I ha1.e becn in il committed rclutionship for seven years. We
;Ii;irc our parenting responsibilities for Alyssa. We also enjoy playing Bingo at St. Paul's
L'athoiic Church in the Mission.
3 .
23.
In an effort to betrcr meet my Samily's financial needs, I have started taking
classes to pass my Gcncral Educational De\clopment Tests. 1 attend classcs t\vo days pc
week at the I'recita Center and at the Mission Girls Centcr.
34.
I am currcntly e m p l o e d with Blue \Vatu Towing and Auto Service (.'Blur.
Water Towing"), a conipany that tons vehicles for San Francisco's Auto Rcturn. 1 have
worked for Blue Water To\\ ing h r eight months. 1 work the night shift. from 10:00 PM
until 8:00 AM. I am paid S12 per car towed or's72 per car if dollies are needed to tow
the vehicle. On slo\ver days, usually during the \veek, I drive around the city in search of
cars that need to be to\ved. When business is slo\r, 1 am expected to drive u~hereever I
believe there are cars that need to be towed. On the weekends, when the number of
parking violations increases, my job becornes very demanding. I atn sent to various part:
of San Francisco. including the Zone. I estimate that I am dispatched to the Zone
approximately six times per month. I do not have the flexibility to decline a pick-up or tc
ignore 3 call bccause of location of the car that needs be towed. I have also applied for a
job bvith the San Francisco Department of Public Works. If hired I may be required to
work at night within the Zone.
5
To specifically address the allegations against me. I have never joined a
gang and have ne\,er participated in any gang initiation process for the Nortefio gang. I
believe that a Nortefio is a person \vho has an affiliation with the number fourteen, or the
color red. My persold knowledge of the Nortefio gang and other gangs in the
community is limited. I am aware that gangs such as Bryant Street and LNS exist.
IIo\vever. I do not know what the acronym LNS represents. Also. I know of the Bryant
Strcet gang because of Rolando's membership in the gang. but 1 am not very
kno\vledgcable about any other gangs in the Mission District.
36.
1 personally have no affinit). towards the gang's color. red or the numhcr
fourteen. 1 rarely \\ear the color red. but regularly \\ear the color blue. I understand blue
to he thr. gang color of the Nortcfio's rival gang. the Surefios. %2.1! wardrobe primarily
consists of \\bite t-shirts and blur jeans. I-lo\\e\cr. I would rcadil! \\ear either red or
hluc colored clothing. Additionally. I feel comfortable traveling any\vhere in the Missior
1 and I haye no conflicts with the Surefiv gang.
i
37. 1 do not have any gang tattoos. The only tattoo on my body is located on the
I . ot. my. rlght. forearm. It rends. "Rlt' CHINO". I acquired this tattoo in honor of
; outside
I
1 m!
litdime rriendship nith Rolando.
38.
The evidence presented in favor of an in.iunction against me includes my
presence at e w m on the night of hlarcli 2 5 ; 2006. March 29- 2006, and June 2. 2006.
I On March 25. 2006. 1 n a s standing on the corner of2jti1Street and Capp Street with In>
cousin. Antonio Garcia, the night after Rolando was killed. We were not the only people
present on the corner. Several members of the community came to the location of the
shooring. After Rolando was killed: some of the members in the community, including
my Aunt Gladys, visited the corner of 2 j t h Street and Capp Street daily. for two
collsecutive weeks.
3
On the morning of March 29. 3006, several members of the Mission
community, including friends, family, and well-wishers gathered at corner of 25"' Street
1
I
and Capp Street for a memorial for Rolando. The memorial began at approximately
10:00 AM. Members of the community brought flowers, lit candles. and spoke about
thelr memories of Rolando. At one point during the afternoon all of us at the memorial
kneeled down in unison to pra?. The Precita Center. through the Healing Circle program
brought food to the community members at the memorial. I arrked at the memorial at
8:00 Ahl. I assisted with comforting members in the community. At one point in the
1 afternoon I brought food to Rolando's mother n h o refi~sedto leave the corner \\here her
i1 son \I
!
I
as killed.
30.
1 had to leave the vigil earl! to go to vork. but returned after n.ork at
i dround 10:00 PM. Since 1 had not eaten dinner. before going to the memorial I ate dinnc
i.
1 xvith Antonio Garcia at 1.a Tailueria. on 24"' Street. After dinner, Antonio Garcia and I
joined Antonio Xapoieon 1the ~neinorial The three of us spent the e l cning reminiscing
I1 about Rolando. U:, 1 I:00 P b l there icere still about 20 members ofthe community at the
~ memorial. \vhich \vas scheduled to end at Midnight.
I
While I \\as still at the vigil. I heard
41.
I inli~rmedInspector Yu that I \\as shot from behind. I therefort. did not
have any information regarding the description ofthe person who shot me at the
~ncniori:tl. Inspector Yu asked me uhethcr I Tvanted to participate in the invcsrigation ot
a green C1ie1.y Impala that \\.as obscrwd b) \\itnesses lea\ ing thc scene. I~lo\vever.since
I did not have personal kno\vlecige about the assailants. I dcclined the offer to participate
in the prosecution. I simply did not Seel con~fortablemaking accusation against the greei
Chcvy without any personal knowledge. I believe that my response \\.as improperly
interpreted by Inspector Yu as failing to cooperate. I was then asked to sign a release of
in\#cstipation,
42.
The Plaintiffs alleged evidence against me is also based on e\.ents that
occurred on the afternoon of June 2, 2006. On that day, Salvador Rodriguez and I both
attended a c h i l d s birthday party and barbeque given at a residence on Shotwell Street.
43. I know Salvador Rodriguez through Sal\.ador's younger brother Daniel, who
is another one of my childhood friends. As children, Salvador and Daniel lived next doo
to me. However 1 only became closely acquainted with Salvador when he began
volunteering at the Precita Center. Salvador drove the organization's van that provided
transportation for children to and from Precita Center sponsored activities.
44. On the day of the barbeque, Salvador and I were asked by the party's host to
walk to the store. at 3 149 24"' Street, to purchase more cups and napkins for the party.
I.rpon turning the corner to reach the store I heard someone yell, "Freeze, Trucho." As I
turned to\\ards the voice I obsened Officer hlolina and Ofticer E s p i n o ~ awith their guns
drawn and poinlcd at Sal\,ador. Salwdor ran aua! from the police to\\ards the store and
out of my vie\\.. ?'he ol'ticeer disrcpardcd me. but follo~\cdSalvador tonards the store. I
i~nmediatel>.
ran back to\\;~rdsthe barbcque.
15.
At the time oSthe incident. I \\.as not alvare that Salmdor \\.as arrested fur
possessing a tirearm. and I did not kno\\ that Salt ador was c a r r ~ i n ga gun.
46.
T h e ninltitnde of ways that an injunction will limit n q constitntionally
protected daily activities inclucies, but is not limited to, the follolving:
l
bl) curl-ent job as
a)
:I
to\\ truck dri\ er on the night shift. I om currently
1 ~.equircdto trawl all o1.c.r San Francisco to to\\
i
cars lbr Hlue M'ater 'fo\viny. 1 to\\ cars
out of the Zonc at least six times per month. An injunction ivould prei,ent me from
I touing cars for members in the comniunit) irlio happen to be affiliated with a gang.
i
Additionally. a 10:00 I'M curfe\\- may cause m! en~ployerto be apprehensive abo~itin).
I frecdoni to move about the Zone. even for legiti~natebusiness purposes.
I
I regularly visit Tracy Bro\\n, Director of Precita Center. at her residence i~
b)
i the zonc. These visits sometimes occur in the late evening. An injunction \vould prevent
1 me from
.
.
wsltlng my Aunt Tracy and her family at night and would prevent me from
..
I attending some i:,nnily gatherings.
c)
I f 1 irere to be enioined liun pickins up
111) sister
Jaslnina after work
because gang members arc at her job site, she \vould most likely have to quit her job due
t o lack oftmnsportatioo.
I
1
d)
orandmother,
z
e)
An injunction would burden my transportation arrangements with my
Julia Hernandez; I drive her to and from St. Peter's Catholic Church.
An injunction \vould burden my transportation arrangements with my aunt,
Lorena Oropesa; I drive her to and from her job at San Francisco General I-Iospital.
i1
1
1,
f)
I \\.o~~ld
be forced to quit my \ olunteer job at the Precita Center because the
work regularly places me in direct contact \iith youth icho are in ganzs or ivho choose to
affiliate nith a gang. I iiould be enjoined from rexhinp youth how to avoid gnngs.
g)
Since lnq fa\orite sports team is the San Francisco Forty Nincrs. an
il?junction \\.auld prohibit me from supporrinp my favorite team on game da!. b ) wearing
~:the team colors. red and gold.
i
~
I
11) I \\-ould also be cn.joine~1from participating in e\,ening and nighttime
SUCII
c o m ~ n u n i acti\.ities.
t~
US
Dia de 10s lluertos: ivith famil) and friends in the Zone.
!
1
i
'
j
i ) With an injunction in place. 1 \\auld not be allo\\cil to eat ar man>-of in!
f>\.orite restaurants at night. including the Red 13alloon.
j ) q,'hcne\-er I enter thc Zone Ian1 al\\a!.': at risk of criminal prosecution b! si~npl!
c o n ~ i nin~contact with old fiiend or acquaintances ivho arc afliliated \\ ith a gang. or \\I](
are not afliliated nit11 a gang hut
\\
ho are also on the ini~inctionlist.
The ibrcgoing is true and correct ofm! o\\n kno\\ledge. except as to thosc matter
stated on information and belicf: and as to those. 1 believe them to be true.
Executed on this 3rd day of September, 2007. at San Francisco. California.
EXHIBIT B
DECLARATION OF IRIS BIBLOWITZ
EXHIBIT "
"
1. Iris Biblwvitz. declare cis follo\vs:
1.
1 hake personal kno\vledge of most of the matters set forth herein, and could and
vould testify thereto if called upon to do so. All other matters set forth herein are based on
nforniation and belief and 1 believe those matters to be true. I submit this declaration in
)pposition to the injunctive relief sought in this case.
2.
1 am 61 years old and I currently reside within the proposed Prohibited Zone
"Zone") at 2982 26'h Street in San Francisco, California 941 10. I have lived at this residence
vithin the Zone for the past 12 years. I have lived in the MissiodBernal Heights for 3 1 years,
vithin the Zone for 25 years.
3.
I am a Registered Nurse at Tom W'addell Clinic located at 50 Ivy St. and at North
tnd South of Llarket Adult Day Health Center located at 55 Mabini St. I am very familiar \vith
nany of the families in the Mission because I was a home health nurse in the community for fou
'ears.
4.
I am very active in my Mission community. I h
e been a member of the San
:rancisco Tenants Union for the past 30 years. Also, I have worked at the Day Labor Program il
he Zone. on Capp Street at 3 3 5 s Ccsar Chavez Street, providing free preventive medical care
cr\,ices intermittently for eight years.
5.
I feel comfortable \balking in the Zone during the day. evening. and late at night.
use public transportation, and my partner rides ci bike. I see youth on the street. especiall) 24'"
itreet, but I have never felt threatened: nor klt the need to cross the street to a\uid them 1 have
lever had a problem \vitli gany members blocking the sidevvalks, nor have I ever had my
~ o p c r t yvandalized by gan;: meinbers.
6.
I do not h a \ < an) criminal convictions. M y interxtior~\\it11 the police primarily
oiisists of observing officers u h o stop and harass young Latino men in my neighborhood. I
I/ individuall!
t
ia
I/
1
m ~ di n groups and held them for long periods of time before releasing them or takiq
illere are two incidences tllrt stand out in my mind:
a)
In 2006, I was walking Ivith my Partner Fran T a ~ l o on
r Bryant Street to our home
on 26'" Street. irhen I vbscned the police stop a young Latino ninn n h o was irrlking in front of
) / us. I did not !inow the young man personally, but rcrognired him as the grandson of one of my
home 11cnlth patients. Although the young inan \+as being loud, he was not bothering Frail or
me. nor \\as he liarassing anyone else. I told the arresting officer that the young Latino man \vas
'
ii
-1
1
1
7
i3
li
1i l
II
II
not bothering anyone. T o this the officer responded, "A yo1111g Latino just stabbed someone, is
that good eno~ighfor ?ou?" I responded '.No. the conimunit> is full of Latino ~outh."and
further pressed to know u h y he was batliering this particular youth. The o R c e r did not respond
to me. but took the young man a u a y in a patrol car
iI
b)
In 2004, I observed police officers stop a group of Latino ~ o u t h sat
, around 25"'
1 Street and Capp Street. The officers had lined the young Latinos, \rho looked to be about 16 to
18 year old, against the wall of a garage on their knees. I stood still observing for forty-five
minutes before the cops told the young Latino Illen that they could leave because the cops did no
find anything.
7.
Though I have many concerns about an injunction in my neighborhood, one of ni:
fears is that the effectiveness of my work with the Day Labor Program and Health Fairs may be
1/I
less eikctive with an injunction in place. Currently. up to 25% o f t h e Fair participants are youtik
Latino men. ?.he,- receive a variety of ft-ee services including blood sugar tests. blood pressure
I
1'1 I rests. mti referrals for clinics that test f ~ wsexually transmitted disease and iniccrions. Houever.
!I
i
,
Inlth
311i n j ~ i n c t i ~inn place.
youny people may be afraid to solicit our services due to the
I ,
I!I increased police prcscncc.
I
:C
!1
-
ij
!i
,
1
1/
;"
ii
.Also youth on the injunction list may stay away from fear ot'cmniiig
into contact \\it11 iino~hcrperson on the inj~ulnctionlist.
8.
L:\cn though I havc never had a tl~reateningencounter in 1 1 1 ~corn~niinity.I am
a i r r e tlliit ~ i o l c n e eis a pmblern. I h n o ~ vthat a pcrioli was killcd a m ) s s tiom Gartied Park
nio
I
blocks from m) home. 13on.ewr. I hclievc a gang injunction is not the solution for the prohlcni
of violence in the Mission.
9.
I believe a t o ~ v nmeeting to gather community inpiit is necessary, but neithcr th<
1 San 1'ri1ii~iscoPolice Dcparrn~cnt(SFPD) nor the City Attorney contacted
mc regarding my
1 \ i w s on gang mjunction as a 30-year resident in the Mission
I
I
1
1
I dcclare under penalt) of perjur) undcr the l a u s of the State of Cahforn~athat the
foregoing is true and correct Executed this 30" da) of A u g ~ ~ s2007
t , in the City and Count] of
S i n Francisco. California.
IRIS BIBLOWITZ
DECLARATION OF ROBERTO HERNANDEZ
EXHIBIT "[ 1"
I. Roberto Hernandez? declare as follows:
1.
I have personal knowledge of most of the matters set forth herein, and could and
vould testify if needed. All other matters set forth herein are based on information and belief,
md I believe those matters to be true. I submit this declaration in opposition to the injunctive
elief sought in this case.
2.
I am 51 years old and I currently reside within the proposed Prohibited Zone
"Zone") at 1333 Florida Street in San Francisco, California 941 10. I have lived in the Mission
ny whole life.
3.
Additionally, I have worked with many community organizations within the
rilission. I have worked at the Mission Coalition Organization, Centro Latino, Real Alternatives
'rogram, United Farm Workers, Director of the Bernal I-JeightsNeighborhood Center, Mission
3conomic Cultural Association
Throughout the years of working in the community, I have
rlways worked with youth at the various organizations provided tutoring, counseling and jobraining for youth.
4.
Currently. I am the Artistic Director and Producer of the annual, "Carnaval San
:rancisco." which is a project of Mission Neighborhood Centers Inc. I started working with
Zarnaval thirty years ago as a musician. Since then, I have been part of the event staff. This
,ear on Saturday, May 26th. and Sunday. May 271h the blission will celebrate thirty years of
-arnaval. Details regarding the event may be found at, www.camavalsf.com. Our festival
Ira\vs over 400.000 thousand people for two days of dancing Salsa, Samba, Reggae. Tango. Hip
lop. Merengue, Calypso. Cha Cha Cha: Cumbia, and Mambo that continues into the evening.
:ood vendors offer traditional delicacies. and others sell crafts native to the Latin countries of
heir heritage.
5.
In 2008 Camaval San Francisco will be celebrating its 301hyear and the Carnaba
'arade will pass directly through the center of the Zone: beginning at 241h Street and Harrison,
hen continuing down Mission Street and end at 17Ih Street and Mission Street. 1he festival mil
ake piace almost exclusively within the Zone on Harrison between 161hStreet and 241h Street.
The parade '.staging area" will be located on Bryant Street between 181hStreet and Cesar Chave
jtreet, also within the Zone.
6.
Additionally. I regularly participate in the annual Day of the Dead San Franciscc
:elebrations. This past year the community event was held on November 2. 2006. The
~rocessionbegan at 7:00 pm, and ended at 8:00 pm. This march started in the Zone at 24th &
3ryant and ended at the Festival of Alters in Garfield Park at 36" Street and Harrison. At the
:nd of the processional, community members played the drum to honor deceased leaders of the
:ommunity. Last we drummed to honor Carlos Aseituno. The drumming continued until 11:OC
)m.
7.
As a life-time resident in the Mission, I feel comfortable walking in my
~eighborhoodwithin the Zone during the day, evening, and late at night. I see Latino youth in
youps on the street. I enjoy watching them socialize together. I have never felt threatened by
hem, nor have I ever felt the need to cross the street to avoid them. I have never had a problem
vith gang members blocking the sidewalks, nor have I ever had my property vandalized by gan,
nembers.
8.
As a Latino man, 1 have been personally harassed by the police. There are two
ncidences that stand out in my mind:
a)
1 have own a 1964 Chevy Impala for over twenty years. I was stopped by the
~olicein San Francisco so frequently that stopped driving the car altogether. I would be stoppet
~pto four d a y during the week mhiie driving the car. The hassle of harassment was such a
lurden that I now leave my car in my garage as a show piece.
b)
On New Years Eve 2006. 1 was with two friends who are also Latino men. I was
lot drinking; I do not drink alcohol and my friends were not drinking alcohol either. 1 had an
ced-tea and my friends also had non-alcoholic beverages. The police approached us and asked
IS if
we had been driking. The officer smelled my tea and poured it out. Across the street ther
vere people who were I could see were actually drinking alcohol. but the cops did not go across
he street to investigate them I could not help but notice that the group across the street was
rimarily young Caucasian men and women.
c)
In November 2004, my car stopped on highway 101. I was stuck on the side of
he freeway. I called AAA and they said that they would send the cops to make sure I was oka!
Nhen the cops arrived, they made me get out of the car, put my hands behind my head. They
an my license plate numbers. When they didn't find anything they asked if I was in a gang. At
irst I thought it was a joke, but when I realized they were serious I became angry. I told them I
vas not drunk, but they made me submit to a sobriety test. Then AAA arrived to assist me and
he police left without acknowledging their.
9.
Even though I have never had a threatening encounter in my community, I belie\
iolence in our community needed to be addressed. I do not believe a gang injunction is the
olution for the problem. I think the violence in our community should be addressed as an
pidemic such as AIDS. The City of San Francisco should fund more educational classes and
,iolence prevention programs.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
bregoing is true and correct. Executed this 4th day of September. 2007 in the City and County
~fSan Francisco. California
EXHIBIT D
DECLARATION OF
i
EXHIBIT "[
2
1''
3
4
I, Eric Quezada, declare as follows:
5
1.
I have personal knowledge of most of the matters set forth herein, and could and
6
iould testify thereto if needed. All other matters set forth herein are based on information and
7
elief, and I believe those matters to be true. I submit this declaration in opposition to the
8
9
10
ljunctive relief sought in this case.
2.
I am 41 years old and I currently reside in the Mission, one block from the
roposed Prohibited Zone ("Zone") at 146 Peralta Ave. San Francisco California 941 10. I have
11
ved at my residence in the Mission for twenty years. I grew up in the Mission. My parents
12
ave a long history as entrepreneurs in the community. They owed a bicycle shop 24" Street fc
13
en years].
14
15
16
17
I am the current Director of Delores Street Community Services. Our main
ffices are located at 938 Valencia St., which is three blocks from the Zone. We provide many
:rvices for the community including shelters for homeless men. All of our shelters are within
i8
ie Zone at, St. Peter's Catholic Church located on Alabama Street, between 241h Street and 25"
19
treet and 1050 South Van Ness, between 2Is'Street and 22ndStreet. Our shelters have seventy
20
eds, and 15% of our clients are young Latino men.
21
4. We also provide services for the homeless immigrant population. I am concerned th
22
le injunction will prel ent us from adequately serving our target population, especially
23
nmigrant Latino men who are day laborers. There is already increased anxiety from my client
24
ue to potential Immigration Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) raids. The injunction adds to the
25
:rutin) that the community feels they are under, from law enforcement and government
26
zencies.
2
-
28
l
3.
iranc,sco
h c Defender
5.
I am apart of the San Francisco Immigrant Legal and Education is comprised of
fourteen member organizations. Our office is the lead agency. We are also the lead agency for
the SROs Single Residence Occupancies (SROs).
6. We have a case manager who recommend services for the people who come into the
shelters in the zone
7.
As a life-time resident in the Mission, I feel comfortable walking in my
neighborhood within the Zone during the day, evening, and late at night. I feel safe traveling
within the zone to and from work by bike. I have never had a problem with gang members
blocking the sidewalks, nor have I ever had my property vandalized with graffiti by gang
members.
8.
Regarding harassment by the police, I frequently see cars being driven by Latinos
being stopped by the police in the Mission, and maybe it is a legitimate, however it is such a
regular occurrence that I'm numb to it. If there are white people being stopped I really notice
because it is a rare occurrence.
9.
I think violence is a real fear for African American, Latino poor communities. I
think it is a problem within the Zone and San Francisco, one incident of violence is to many, but
the lack of decent affordable housing, economic opportunity, and lack of access to health care,
md many other factors affect how violence impacts our community. The solution is not an
injunction. Our community needs pre-emptive and long-term solutions. The injunction only
reinforces stereotypes of our community. I believe it is a politically motivated policy based morl
sn expediency than effectiveness.
10.
I believe a process (town hall meetings, small groups, surveys: one on ones,
:ultural sensitivity) to gather community input is necessary, but neither the San Francisco Police
Department (SFPD) nor the City Attorney contacted me or my agency regarding my views on
;an& injunction as a worker, community member and district nine resident.
I declare under penaltq of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
oregoing is true and correct. Executed this 41h daq of September, 2007 in the City and County
16San Francisco, California.
ERIC QUEZADA
Euitraqo's Mction to ;
I,
EXHIBIT E
,
.,
,
,
,..
-.. _,.. .(
.
hover;aer
- .
~;.q;,
/.;:-
.
J~~~~~
:.!L:..:::.,,;-s
-
2 .
p,~:: G:]
?;,:L;;n!;L,ls:. r. ,-,,. r
.I.
?a;sege
.
: Co-=ex:
of r'e
?i,rspe;:i:-.ss.
Press.
,
L . . j l l .
:522.
..c-L..
ZGS.
.r,..r
;,-
:
;,j2;
-
.;:,:ir.s:
..
721L
,..-...;
:
.
b:;;:,
..
2i-L
:
-n ,..-
... ..
'-.. r..9
.
Yerdac3:.',':.<I:,::>
refcrr.
r . :
~ ~ ,
".
-
3efm
i-
~.
,-.r:?;:. :-y;d:~:::;
3:
:,i Sn:e~:l::q
3 9 ; C r l n e .>.c: . "
-c:'!.:-:c5s
:
.:
;:-~c
-
.
..
_-, _ .-i . ..
,''
.
s,7:;;.;.:13
. z e L r ~ - t:.:~:I~<:CTL.... :l::!.::T.j
..;;),;.,."
. I _ _ . . . . . . _ _-_-. .
. ,-
;rj
- ..".._..,
.- -,.-
,. . ' i s .! .
,,
2 2 ~ 3 ;=::SS,,
.:,,:::;:r.~: x
::.::*:s:v
-r::L::-:S
,
-.- , ; - -
3 .
:::.s.
.:. :c.,dLa:e5
-..-:
i'
: ; ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~y ,.c q
.: - ~ ~ ,
-31
:;
r
.<
e
I 2 1 3 I ? . ,,
"
,i;3.:
:
the ;:s:dr;
;s\--?oz::,c:.rs L e a J ~ n q : i+.e
,se;>
+ *., .. ..
,L-..
.T ~ 2
.
L - ~
Cyr:~ r s z a arc Nell 3ut:on.
:.?3 Sscj~ecy: I : E s r ! : a : 2 ~ : : 3 . ~
~
;.;ilir~oc,
t n ~ l a n d : .>.snare
'3.e f o r e g o i n g is trae k?d co_rrect of ~ . y
r r , i-.r..oaried~e, except a s to tiose
la:ters
ie
S a t e d un infsnaution cr.9
belief; and as ro those, I b e l i e v e then to
true.
Executed on = U s fourct day of Septenicar, Z D C ? ,
a
:
SaE Fracc:scs,
EXHIBIT F
Jeff Adachi (SBN 121287)
Public Defender
Teresa Caffese
Chief Attorne)
555 Seventh Street
San Francisco, CA 94 103
Telephone: 41 5.553.9520
Facsimile: 415.553.9810
Attorneys for Intervenor
Socorro Gamboa
Superior Court of the State of California
County of San Francisco
People of the State of California,
Case No. CGC-07-464492
b j and through Dennis Herrera, City
Attorney for the City and County of San
Francisco.
Declaration of Socorro Gamboa
Plaintiff.
NorteAo, a criminal street gang sued as
an unincorporated association; and Does
1-500 inclusive.
Defendants.
Hearing Date: September 18.2007
Time:
9 3 0 a.m.
Dept:
Dept. 302
Judge:
Honorable Patrick Mahoney
Complaint Filed: June 21, 2007
Trial Date:
None yet
I, Socorro Gamboa. declare as follows:
1.
I have personal kno\\ledge of most matters herein. and can and \\ill testify thereto if
needed. All other matters herein arc based on information and belief. and I belicve those to be
true. I submit this declaration in opposition to the injunctive relief sought in this case.
2.
I am 51 years old and I currently reside at 1502 Guerrero Street. Although I do not live in
the '.safety zone'' outlined in the Complaint for Injunctive Relief to Abate a Public Nuisance
Caused by the Conduct and Activities of the Norteiio Criminal Street Gang, I have worked
extensively in the "safety zone" for more than 30 )ears.
3.
1 currently work as the director of the Community Response Network (''CRN) and have
done so for one year. CRN is located at 2730 Bryant Street, within the proposed "safety zone' in
the Mission District.
3.
CRN is a community organization that coordinates crisis response, case management, and
street-level outreach services to at-risk youth in the Mission District. The gang injunction will
undermine the important violence-prevention and gang-intervention efforts of community-based
organizations, including CRN.
4.
CRN's network is composed of five member agencies: Arriba Juntos does employment
programming; Instituto provides mental health services: Mission Neighborhood Center provides
outreach services: the Columbia Park Boys and Girls Club; and the Mission Beacon. We also
work closely with the Central American Resource Center (CARKEN). and other service and
advocacy organizations in the Mission district.
5.
This year. CRN served approximately 1200 people in our community and carried 83
cases. Seventy percent of the youth we serve are gang-identified. On average. CRX serws
approximately 100 juveniles: ages 16 to 24. per year. Approximately forty percent of those youth
are in our -'intensiveu program. 'These young people have generally had some contact with the
criminal justicc system, and are either pre-ad.judication, on probation. or parole. We see these
individuals two to three times weekly. Approximately sixty percent of the youth sewed are in our
'-preventative" program. These youth tend to he in high-risk situations and can benefit from
preventative community programs.
D ~ ~ l i l i m oofn S x w r d Cimih08
C:N 30 C(iC-O7-164-I9Z
-I -
&'
I
!
I
6.
C R N hires staff with close ties to the community. \vho have experienced the difficulties
that many our youth tice. and who understand their options. Many of our staff members were
once gang-affiliated and are now cffcctive case managers and role models for youth in our
community. Beca~lseour youth can identify with our staff. our staff provides real alternatives to a
life of crime or violence. It is crucial to the success of our programs that individuals who have
successfully exited from gang activity can associate with youth who are gang-affiliated. Through
relationships built on trust and shared understandings, our programs help youth see positive
alternatives to violence.
7.
CRWs case management program has a therapeutic and holistic approach: we seek to
address PTSD. anxiety, low self-esteem, and other psychological and emotional issues, in
addition to referring our clients to programs such as job or vocational skills training. Through our
referral network. we provide wraparound services. such as mental health support, to our client's
families. We individually match our clients with case managers who will best fit their
background and needs, so that we can reach youth who may not fit into traditional programming.
8.
CRN also provides emergency services through our Crisis Response Team. We are
contacted by the San Francisco General Hospital in the event of a gang-related stabbing or
shooting, and we provide case-management services for the victims. We also provide emergency
funds and services to families after gang-related homicides.
9.
C R N provides street-level outreach services in gang-affected neighborhoods. We provide
our youth with "safe passage' from areas of escalating tension and potential violence to safe
areas. For example, our "midweek" team works near high schools daily after classes let out to
ensure students from different areas of the Mission arrive home safely. At night, our "calles"
team provides a similar sen~ice,and responds to and difhses potential incidents of violence on
the streets. A critical part of this outreach is the ability to provide transportation to and from
different ekents. We pick youth up at different locations and bring them, often within a group. to
educational programs or safe environments, u,hcrc they can socialize away from the street.
10. C R N also engages in "intervention and diversion." C R N staff is trained to intervene in
police detentions of suspected gang-affiliates. Police will often release youth participating in
CRN programming to our staff. who transport the youth to a safe location. This intervention can
and ofien does result in transporting groups of youth together.
1 1. In addition to crisis response. case management. and street outreach, CRN organizes
recreational programming such as barbeques and movie outings with large groups of youth in the
community to provide positive alternatives to the streets. We reach out to youth where they
congregate, rather than waiting for them to come to us.
12. CRN also provides vocational training and employment opportunities. This summer, we
placed eight former gang members in an employment program with hluni and SFUSD. This was
designed to promote safety on public buses and required individuals to work on the buses in pairs.
This summer we also provided eight individuals with an eight-week internship and job training in
community beautification. On program completion, each individual was put on a list to get a city
job with the Department of Public Works.
1 3 The proposed gang injunction threatens to disrupt many of these positive violence
prevention efforts. We currently provide services to at least five individuals named in the
proposed injunction. After the injunction was proposed, we held focus groups with individuals
named on the gang injunction list to assess what services they needed and how we could support
them. In addition, because we work with high-risk and gang-affiliated youth, this injunction has
the potential to impact greater numbers of the clieuts we serve. Our services to them, and to other
youth in our community, would be at risk if the injunction were imposed as written.
14. If named individuals are unable to associate with one another in public or in places
accessible to the public in the "safety zone," we will not be able to provide these clients the full
range of our services. We will not be able to involve them in any of our programs that require
association, including job training, employment opportunities, and positive recreational events.
For example. we recently organized a community barbeque at Precita Park and picked up groups
of youth who gather at various pick-up locations throughout the Mission. These activities would
be difficult: if not impossible. to provide if named individuals were forbidden from congregating ;
I
in public. Further: if individuals on the gang illjunction list are stopped or detained by the police. 1
we may not be able to intervene and provide them with transportation to a safe environment if
there is another pcrson on the list who in our \:an.
5
Already: the proposed injunction has prompted youth from our community - both nomed
and unnamed by the proposed injunction - to disperse to other areas of the city out of fear. If
young people are pushed out of our community. our capacity to serve them will be severely
limited because our funding only permits us to operate within the Mission District. Scattering
youth to other parts of the city does not address the root problems that create a cycle of violence;
it will not change the underlying economic circumstances that put our youth at risk. Instead,
relocating the youth will place them outside their own communities, detached from the positive
services provided by our organization and others.
16. Moreover, because most of our case managers and outreach workers have similar
backgrounds to the youth we serve, 1 also fear the discretion the injunction gives police to stop,
detain: or otherwise harass our staff. The proposed injunction has already produced a climate of
fear in the Mission District that affects not only named individuals but all of those with whom
they associate, including the comniunity w-orkers who are trying to create positive change in the
Mission. Already, in the time since the injunction was filed, police harassment of our staff and
clients has hindered our ability to provide violence prevention and gang intervention services.
17. In July of 2007. at 24'h and Alabama Streets (within the "safety zone"). a van full of CRN
outreach workers was pulled over by the Gang Task Force. The officer ordered our staff out of
the van. CRWs Case Management Coordinator, Luis Aroche, showed the officer his CRN
identification card and explained that they a.ere community workers, but the officer paid no
attention. Police forced our staff to remove their shirts. Some of our staff were formerly
involved in gangs and have gang-related tattoos. They were handcuffed and told to sit on the
curb. They were told that they had been circling the area too many times, and that because of the
gang injunction, they could not hang around in the area unless they were "doing business." Our
staff explained they \vere circling around because they were doing outreach work in the
neighborhood. Finally, after thirty minutes in handcuffs. our staff was released. This entire
incident took place in a public location at the timc school let out: students and parents on the
streets sau our staff handcuffed. sitting on the curb. nith their tattoos exposed. The staff felt
disrespected and that their standinz in the community had been dellberatel) undermined .4fter
the incident, the CRN staff spoke nith the hlisslon District Police Captain Goldberg. who
informed them that he had no jurisdiction over the Gang Task Force. I believe the proposed
injunction would only expand the impunity with which the Gang Task Force operates against
youth and community workers alike. The harassment experienced by CRN staff seriously
undermines the positive violence-prevention work happening right now in the hfission District.
18. 1 have heard of other instances of police misinformation related to the proposed
injunction. For instance, one named individual mas stopped by the Gang Task Force in Excelsior
and told he couldn't be in that neighborhood because he was on the gang injunction list.
19. All the above-described programs that are at risk due to the proposed injunction are
funded by the City of San Francisco. CRN is a fully citl-funded network: we contract with the
city to provide safe passage. case management, crisis response, and outreach services to youth in
the Mission. We cannot optimally fulfill our contractual obligations if the injunction is imposed.
20. Overall. I do not believe the gang injunction is an effective violence-prevention strategy.
It takes our youth away from their community without addressing any of the problems that cause
violence and gangs. It takes away valuable tools that exist to address the problem of violence in a
way that strengthens. rather than disperses. the community itself. At the same time. it gives the
police a law enforcement tool that has, and will continue to be, easily abused.
21. The injunction has already created a climate of fear anlong youth, community uorkers,
and residents. It undermines the positive work that CRY and other organizations are doing right
now to prevent gang violence and help our youth lead producti\,e lives.
I declare under penalty of perjurq under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed this 3 1st day of August, 1007 in the City and Count! of San
EXHIBIT G
Superior Court of the State of California
County of San Francisco
People of the State of California, by
and throu h Dennis Herrera, City
Attorney .or the City and County of
San Francisco,
f
Plaintiff,
Case No. CGC-07-464492
I
Declaration of Henry Morales
Hearing Date:
Time:
VS.
Se tember 18, 2007
9:#6 a.m.
Dept. 302
Honorable Patrick
Exti:
Norteno, a criminal street gang, sued ~ a f o n e y
as an unmcor orated assoclatlon,
and Doer 1 &rough 500,
Complaint Filed: June 2 1, 2007
Trial Date:
None yet
Defendants.
II
I, Henry klorales. declare as follows:
1.
I state the following based on personal knowledge, or upon information and
belief, and would testify to the same. I submit this declaration in opposition to the injunctive
relief sought in this case.
2.
I am 28 years old and I currently work at the Central American Resource Center
("CARECEN"). which is located at 1245 Alabama Street in the Mission District. CAKECEU is
....
located approxinia&yor-w hlek f r e r r t - v the ..safety zone" outlined in the
Conlplaint for Injunctive Relief to Abate a Public Nuisanct: Caused by the Conduct and
Activities of the Norteiio Criminal Street Gang. 1 have been employed n i t h CARECES for
approximately six months and have worked within the "safety zone" for the past twelve years.
Prior to Xvorking at C.4KECL3. my work in the Mission District included co-founding fiomirs
Organizing the Jlission ro Ernpouer Youth (I1OMEY). and ~vvrLing\\it11 the Real Alrernatives
I'rogrnm (RAP) and CL:L.I.space. Each of these drgnnimtions \\arks to pl-c\cnt violence and
2.
The gang injunction will harm the Mission cornmunip by undermining the
important violence-prevention and gang-intervention efforts of community based organizations.
including CARECEN. CARECEX
operates the Second Chance Tattoo Removal program. nhich
offers young men and women a fresh start by removing gang-related tattoos that signify a threat
to their personal safetj. or an obstacle to employabiiit!. The program offers a comprehensive
case management component that provides participants with ducationnl s e n ices and job training
and placement. Our goal is to assist youth and young adults in abandoning gang life-style by
providing them with the skills. kno\vledge, and resources needed to successfully achieve selfempowerment and personal growth.
4.
In addition to the Second Chance Tattoo Removal program, CARECEN provides
"Know Your Rights" workshops. in-court advocacy. and other support senices for at-risk houth
in and out of custody. We serve approximately 300 people annually: including individuals listed
in the proposed gang injunction, and provide intensive case management to 45 individuals.
5.
CARECEN is funded by the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, the San
Francisco Juvenile Probation Department. and the San Francisco Department of Public Health.
Our programs are designed to reintegrate young people into our community. The proposed
injunction undermines these programs because it limits their access to this comrnunit) and to the
services they need to exit gang life. The work u e arc obligated to pcrform under our contract
with the City of San Francisco will be undermined if the proposed injunction is granted. The
proposed injunction contradicts the spirit and purpose of these pro,Drams.
6.
The proposed gang injunction would negatively impact our programs. Our target
population is gang-affiliated youth. Our tattoo remo\al procedures take place c\er! LVednesday.
and there are often groups of people in our waiting arco and more than one person receiving
services at the same time. The Second Chance program will be compromised if individuals who
need our ser~iceshave to fear that they will be arrested for violating the injunction if they happen
to be ualking to or from the CARECEN office in the presence of another person on the list.
from our office to receive our services exposes our clients to police and Gang Task Force officers
enforcing the injunction. Since the gang injunction \\as tiled. police officers have come into our
oftice and hehawd in an intimidating manner. Our office serves man! \valk-in clients and
recei\-es referrals from other service organizations and the probation department. Individuals
will not voluntarily come to our office or be referred to us if traveling to and from our office
exposes them to arrest or police contact for circumstances they cannot control.
8.
The curfew requested in this injunction will also have a negative impact on
violence prevention programs. Community organizations must be able to keep facilities open for
positive nighttime activities. Many of the young people in our conxnunit> come from working
class and low-income backgrounds, and their parents uork at night. They need safe spaces close
to their homes where they can socialize, participate in recreational programs, or receive support
services. They are less likely to take advantage of these services if a curfew is imposed over half
of the Mission District.
9.
1 am also concerned that the police and the Gang Task Force will abuse this
injunction. The injunction has already created a climate of fear and intimidation for people,
whether or not they are named and not named on the injunction list. Since the request for the
injunction was filed. I am informed that the police and the Gang Task Force have subjected
people to random pat-downs, taken pictures of people, pulled people over, and interrogated
people about whether they are on the list. Youth in our communit) have stated to me that police
officers told them that they could not be in the neighborhood because ot'the gan3 inj~mction.
10.
On August 20"' I was pulled over on 26Ih and Treat Streets. in the "safety zone."
The police officer asked if I was on the injunction list, if I was a Nortefio, what religion I am. and
if I had any guns or weapons in my car. I felt the officer was using the injunction as an sxcuse
for what was really racial profiling and harassment. My o\vn experience mirrors \\hat I ha\e
been tuld by orher y u t h
-
police and Gang Task Force ol'ficr.rs are alri.ad> abusing their
discretion to enforce this in~unction.This is happeniny before the in~unctioi~
has even been
members.
I I.
Additionally, I am concerned about the role Ofticer hlolina has played in
identifying which individuals are gang members. Officer Molina has a history of abuse in this
community. One of my clients was shot seven times by Officer Molina when he was unarmed.
We has a reputation as one of the most corrupt police officers in the Mission. Given his
reputation, I have serious doubts that Ofticer Molina has accuratel! represented who is
responsible for gang violence in this communit)
12.
Despite our experience ~iorkingu-ith gang-affiliated youth and our relationships
with various city agencies, CARECEN was not contacted by the City Attorney prior to filing the
proposed injunction. After we learned that the City Attorney was seeking an injunction in the
Mission. u e met with other community based organizations in the Mission to discuss the impact
it would have on our community. Our organizations feel completely disrespected by the City
Attorney's actions. He has never come to one of the programs offered by CARECEN. or to my
knowledge, any of the other community based organizations working with gang-affiliated and atrisk youth in the Mission. I participated in a meeting shortly after the injunction, along with
s e ~ e r a other
l
community organizations and advocates. We told the City Attorney that far more
v~ouldbe done to alleviate violence in the hlission if the money. time. and resources spent on this
injunction would be dedicated to the community groups \\hu hake a procen track record of
success with our clients.
I .
I believe some of the individuals on the list are w~onglylabeled as gang members
One of our former clients, who successfully completed our program and has been working as a
peer educator outreaching to other young people. was listcd in the injunction. She is not an
active gang member and CARECEN adwcated on her behalf to h a w her numc remo\ed from the
list. Although she has been told by the City Attorney's Office that her name mill be removsd. I
am afraid that this injunction sweeps up other people like her. who have turned their lives mound
and are now being unfairly targeted.
11.
The City :\ttorney claims this itil~inctionwill make the Mission district a
place for youth. and for the immigrant conimunity. That is for show. I believe this injunction
\\,as proposed to placate the new businesses, merchant associations, and white residents who
ha\ e recently mo\ ed into the Mission. It is pal7 o f t h e ongoing effort to gentrify our cornmunit)
It will only exacerbate lhe already-discrimitlatory treatment Latino youth and families suffer at
the hands of the police and the Gang Task Force, and undermine the programs that exist to
support them.
I declare under penalty of perjun under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 31'' day of .August, 2007 in the City and County of
San Francisco, California.
,-
/:
EXHIBIT H
ATTORNEY NAME (State Bar No.
ADDRESS
Telephone:
Facsimile:
)
Attorneys for Defendant-intervenor
NAME
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, by and through Dennis
Herrera. City Attorney for the City and
County of San Francisco,
Plaintiff,
VS.
NORTERO, a criminal street gang, sued as
an unincorporated association, and DOES 1
THROUGH 500,
Defendants.
Case No. CGC-07-464492
DECLARATION OF SANTIAGO RUIZ
Hearing Date:
Time:
Dept:
Judge:
September 18,2007
9:30 a.m.
Dept. 302
Honorable Patrick Mahoney
Complaint Filed: June 21,2007
Trial Date:
None yet
I. Santiago Ruiz, declare as follows:
1.
I have personal knowledge of most matters set forth herein, and could and would
testify thereto if called upon to do so. All other maters set forth herein are based on information
and belief. and I belie\e those matters to be true. 1 submit this declaration in opposition to the
injunctive relief sought in this case.
2.
I am fifty-four (54) years old and I currently reside at 3022 Pleitner Ave., Oakland,
CA 94602-3 106
3.
1 am the Executive Director of Mission Neighborhood Centers, Inc. (-'MNC"),
which operates community centers within the "safety zone'' outlined in the Complaint for
Injunctive Relief to Abate a Public Nuisance Caused by the Conduct and Activities of the
Nortefio Criminal Street Gang. I have been employed with MNC for the past twenty-seven (27)
years and worked within the "safety zone" for the past thirty (38) years.
4.
The gang injunction will harm the Mission community by undermining the
important violence-prevention and gang-intervention efforts of community based organizations,
including MNC. MNC strives to improve the quality of life in the greater Mission community by
providing culturally sensitive human services that both support and empower individuals and
families. MNC is a long-standing community institution which has provided dedicated services
to the residents of the Mission for forty-eight (48) years.
5.
MNC has a special focus on the needs of minority youth and operates a wide range
of programs for children, adolescents, and older youth. MNC offers services for girls age ten to
sixteen including academic enhancement, career and leadership development, and prevention
work that includes empowering young girls and women with the information they need to make
positive choices.
6.
MNC also provides a range of services for high-risk youth who are on probation or
in custody. Indi\iduals are released to our program as an alternative to being in custody. . W C
also operates an Evening Reporting Center. Individuals are mandated by the court to participate
in this program. MNC also ofers GED classes for serious offenders through a contract with the
City of San Francisco.
7.
Many of the programs operate and the events we sponsor are in public or are
accessible to the public. For example, our GED classes are open to the public and individuals and
voluntarily participate. The social and recreational acti\ities we organize: most notably Camaval.
are broad based community events that take place in public. and we encourage our clients to
participate. It is imperative that we are able to provide positive social and recreational
alternatives and educational resources to the young people we work with.
8.
Our programs also require gang-affiliated individuals or individuals the police may
suspect of being gang-affiliated to associate with one another. We currently provide services to at
least twelve named individuals on the gang injunction list. Individuals who are mandated by the
court to participate in o w programs do not have a choice as to who they may come into contact
with while entering or leaving our center, or while in our centers receiving services.
Additionally, our center on 241h and Harrison was the designated location for individuals w-ha
were participating in our Youth Internship Program and our program with the Department of
Public Works to pick up paychecks. The individuals coming to pick up their checks cannot
control who is walking in &d out of the center when they arrive, or who else happens to be in the
center.
9.
The proposed association restriction would also undermine the job training and
employment services MNC offers to our clients. For example, MNC had a contract with the
Department of Public Works to hire approximately 60 youth to work cleaning parks. One of the
training sites for this program was in the "safety zone." If the gang injunction is imposed. named
individuals may be barred from receiving services such as this one and would be prohibited from
receiving the economic support senices they need to make positive changes in their lives.
10.
MNC also hires youth from the communitS. to participate in our Youth Internship
Program. These 1-oungpeople work in our community centers, go out into the community to do
organizing activities, attend public hearings and meetings, and get involved in other positive
programming. This May, four of the individuals named on the injunction list were among the
young people we hired through the Youth Internship Progam to help out at Camaval. These
named individuals were partnered up to do crowd control and barricade security at the event. If
the gang injunction were in place, this type of association, even in the context of positive
community activities, would have been forbidden.
11.
MNC receives funding from the City of San Francisco, including the Department
of Children, Youth and Family Services and the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice. We have
contracts with various city agencies and departments to provide our services. This is the very
work that will be undermined if the City Attorney's injunction is imposed on the Mission.
12
I am also concerned that our clients, including individuals who are not named in
the injunction, will be harassed by the police if this injunction is imposed and will be discouraged
from coming to our centers to receive services. When our clients are in our centers, they must
feel they are in an environment where they will receive assistance and support, not be subjected to
random police harassment. On July 13,2007, after the injunction was filed, police officers
entered one of our centers and behaved in a manner that our clients found intimidating. If our
clients are subject to harassment and police intimidation while they are at our centers, it will
discourage them from participating, and they will become isolated from positive suppofl services.
13.
I have heard reports from our clients about other incidents of police harassment
since the injunction was filed. A parent reported that police came to her house and told her that
her kids were on the gang injunction list. but they were not.
I
If this injunction is granted, programs sponsored by kfNC and other community-
based organizations operations should be exempt from the injunction's restrictions. Our services
can not be effectively provided if our clients are prohibited, either by the terms of the injunction
or by the fear it creates in this community, from participating in our programs or from receiving
the full range of services we provide.
15.
This injunction will not solve the violence in the Mission. It does not address the
root causes of violence in this community, and is merely a band-aid solution to a deeper problem.
It undermines the services the Mission Neighborhood Centers provide to the populations that are
most in need of our support.
1
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this fourth (4th.)day of September, 2007, in the City and
County of San Francisco. California.
DECLI\R..\I~lON OF SANTIAGO RUIZ
Casc ?.o CGC-fl74M4YZ
EXHIBIT I
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Case No. CGC-07-464492
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, by and through Dennis
Herrera, City Attorney for the City and
County of San Francisco,
Plaintiff,
DECLARATION OF CLAUDIA JASIN
1
1
NORTERO, a criminal street gang, sued as
VS.
an unincorporated association, and DOES 1
THROUGH 500,
Defendants.
>ECLARATION OF CLAUDIA JASIN
:ax No. CGC-07-464492
Hearing Date:
Time:
Dept:
Judge:
September 18. 2007
9:30 a.m.
Dept. 302
Honorable Patrick Mahoney
Complaint Filed: June 2 1,2007
Trial Date:
None yet
I. Claudia Jasin, declare as follows:
1.
I have personal knowledge of most matters set herein, and can and will testify
thereto if needed. All other matters set forth herein are based on information and belief, and I
believe those matters to be true. I submit this declaration in opposition to the injunctive relief
sought in this case.
2.
I am 39 years old, and I am Executive Director of Jamestown Community Center
("Jamestown"), located at 3382 261h Street in San Francisco. which is within the "safety zone"
outlined in the Complaint for Injunctive Relief to Abate a Public Nuisance Caused by the
Conduct and Activities of the Norteiio Criminal Street Gang. I have been employed with
Jamestown for 11 years.
4.
The gang injunction will harm the Mission community by undermining important
violence-prevention and gang-intervention efforts of community-based organizations, including
Jamestown. For over 35 years, Jamestown has been providing learning opportunities and a safe
space for young people in the Mission District youth in order to help them realize their full
potential as empowered and productive members of society.
5.
Today, Jamestown provides a wide array of educational, recreational, leadership,
and support programs to more than 5 0 0 kids (aged 6-18) and their families. Jarnestown's
programs include teen guidance, educational enrichment, academic tutoring, youth leadership and
employment, sports, and parenting programs. Jamestown uses the theory of youth development
that identifies five supports and opportunities that kids need to grow into healthy adults: a caring
adult mentor, a place to feel safe, the opportunity to build skills, make decisions and be involved
in the community.
6.
Our programming begins in elementary school, and ideally lasts through high
school. We want the youth we serve to feel comfortable talking to staff if they do get involved
with gangs. Approximately fifty gang-affiliated youth participate in our programs. They
continue with our programming at Jamestown because they have been involved since elementary
school, and Jamestown remains a safe space for them.
DECLARATION OF CLAUDIA JASlN
Zase No. CGC-07464492
7.
We work to decrease gang activity by providing positive alternatives to gang life.
When a teenager who would otherwise be unable to graduate from high school comes to
Jamestown for tutoring, he suddenly has a caring adult looking out for him. Many young people
feel like failures, and without intervention, they start on a downward spiral. Our programming
works to give young people hope by providing a forum for them to explore their natural talents,
whether on the soccer field or in an art class. We also work to connect parents and families to
educational and scholarship opportunities that they would not know of otherwise.
8.
The Treehouse Program is our teen guidance program, serving twenty-five boys
(both high school and middle school) and five girls (eighth grade and above). The director of the
Tree Mouse program provides individual clinical case management. Additionally, our teenagers
participate in weeMy support group meetings. During the school year, the support groups meet at
Cesar Chavez Elementary School, within the "safety zone." Many of the participating teens are
trying to steer clear of the gang lifestyle and need the group's support in order to stay away
successfully. They need a constant reminder that they have help, and that they have people to
turn to without being afraid.
9.
All of our programs, except our high school programs and the Treehouse Program,
receive funding through the Department of Children, Youth, and their Families (DCYF).
10.
The proposed gang injunction would damage our ability to support the young
?eople of our community and promote positive alternatives to gang affiliation. Many of our
xograms - from our teen support group to our sports teams to our art classes - involve
mociation of groups of young people in public or publicly accessible places. Although people
mder the age of 18 are not currently named on the gang injunction list, the injunction has created
1 climate
of fear that negatively impacts our programs.
1 1.
Already, many of the boys we serve are afraid to leave their houses because of the
njunction. Some of the teenaged boys that we serve look much older than they are and may
kequently be mistaken for gang members because of the way they dress. Our teenagers report
hat they have experienced additional intimidation since the injunction was proposed. They are
lffected not only by an increase in physical police presence, but also by rumors about the
)ECLARATION OF CLAUDIA JASIN
:ase No. CGC-07-464492
injunction's implementation. If the teenage boys become scared to come to Janlestown, we
cannot help them with services or help them pursue positive alternatives to violence and gang lifi
12.
Despite Jamestown's longstanding efforts in the community to provide
opportunities to youth and to prevent gang activity, the City Attorney's office did not contact our
organization to discuss the best strategies for violence prevention or the impact that a gang
injunction would have on ongoing positive initiatives to counteract violence in our community.
13.
Based on my years of experience working with youth in the Mission District
community, I do not believe that a gang injunction is an effective violence prevention strategy. P
real solution must address the problem's root. There are not enough jobs in our community or
opportunities for young people to gain skills. The public schools have failed our children. Our
youth must be given opportunities to know other possibilities outside of gang life and the chance
to realize that they can succeed. There needs to be support for people who want to get out of
gangs, but who are scared and have no place to go. Community groups need more resources to
address these problems, but they also need the opportunity to work collaboratively with the city tc
really make a difference. A gang injunction is a cheap way to address the problem, but it will no
solve the violence.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
Foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 1 day of September, 2007 in the City and County of
San Francisco, California.
)ECLARATION OF CLAUDIA JASlN
'ase No CGC-07-464492
EXHIBIT J
Jeff Adachi (SBN 121287)
San Francisco Public Defender
555 - 7"' Street
San Francisco, CA 9041 03
Tel: (415) 553-9520
Facsimile: (415) 553-98 10
Attorney for Defendant-Intervenor
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
EALIFORNIA, by and through Dennis
Herrera. City Attorney for the City and
County of San Francisco,
Plaintiff,
J'S.
V O R T E ~ ~aOcriminal
,
street gang, sued as
m unincorporated association, and DOES 1
l-HROUGH 500,
Case No. CGC-07-464492
DECLARATION OF GUSTAVO LOPEZ
Hearing Date:
Time:
Dept:
Judge:
September 18,2007
9:30 a.m.
Dept. 302
Honorable Patrick Mahoney
Complaint Filed: June 2 1,2007
None yet
Trial Date:
Defendants.
I, Gustavo Lopez, declare as follows:
1.
I state the following based upon personal knowledge, or upon information and
~elief,and would testify to the same if called as a witness. I submit this declaration in opposition
o the injunctive relief sought in this case.
2.
I am 23 years old and currently work at Homies Organizing the Mission to
h p o w e r Youth ("HOMEY"). I have been employed with HOMEY for the past two years as the
:ducation Coordinator and worked extensively within the "safety zone" outlined in the
)ECLARA'TION OF GUSTAVO LOPEZ
'arc No CGC-07.464492
.
.
Complaint for Injunctive Relief to Abate a Public Nuisance Caused by the Conduct and Activities
of the NorteAo Criminal Street Gang.
?
2.
HOMEY'S mission is to transform the lives of at-risk youth and inspire them to
choose a path of education, self-sufficiency, and non-violence. We seek to inspire youth to strive
towards physical, mental, and emotional health. Our clients are low-income Latino youths. aged
13-24, including those in gangs, those formerly incarcerated, young people at risk of
incarceration, and isolated and disenfranchised youth who are at risk for unhealthy behaviors like
\.iolence and criminal activity. We work with youth who are not responsive to traditional forms
of social service. Our constituency includes individuals who have been involved in the gang
lifestyle and who are taking positive steps to improve conditions in their own lives and in the
larger community. Since its inception in 1999, HOMEY has offered youth development and
educational programs, created publications and murals, and hosted numerous community events
and resource fairs in the Mission District.
4.
HOMEY organizes in-school support groups at target schools for at-risk ) outh,
many of whom live in the "safety zone" and lack resources and support in school. We coordinate
a youth-organizing group called Kalpulli -which means "council" in Nauatl, the original
language of the Aztecs. Kapulli fights for the rights of Latinos and communities of color, and
provides tools to empower youth to become politically conscious, critical thinkers. We sponsor
movie nights on Fridays, showcase documentary films to which these youth may not otherwise
have access, and facilitate political discussions. We offer opportunities for at-risk youth to get
outside of their immediate neighborhoods, by taking them to community events or on recreational
trips. These activities often involve youth, who are commonly labeled as being from "rival
gangs," engaging together in positive activities. We also provide opportunities for youth to break
down the imaginary boundaries that separate people from different neighborhoods. These
boundaries are only reinforced by suppression tactics like the proposed gang injunction.
5.
HOMEY is run by community organizers and former gang members who work to
prevent violence and promote alternatives to the street life. The strength of our youth leaders and
,A,
staff is that many of them have first-hand experience with gangs, and thus have a high level of
OECLARKIION OF OUSTAVO LOPEZ
Cacc Nu. CGC-07-464492
credibility when reaching out to at-risk youth. They understand the conditions that have forced
young people into street organizations. They offer at-risk youth resources and services from a
genuine perspective, and they demonstrate that youth can successfully exit the gang lifestyle.
6.
Our community will be harmed by the proposed gang injunction, and HOMEY'S
programs will be directly undermined. Some of the named individuals on the injunction list are
family members of young people involved in our programs. Prohibiting individuals on the list
from associating with each other, or with other people the police suspect are gang affiliated, will
limit their ability to become involved in our organizing campaigns, mentorship programs, and
community events. It will discourage youth involved in our programs from fully participating
and growing into leaders in their own families and communities.
7.
The proposed injunction's restriction on associating with others in public will limi
our ability to involve youth in positive community events. HOMEY has organized youth to
participate in May lStevents in San Francisco. On May I", there was a large pro-immigration
rally in San Francisco, with other rallies happening all over the Bay Area. HOMEY, along with
other community organizations, organized Mission residents to meet at Dolores Park and march
downtown to the Civic Center. There were no incidents of violence, even though many of the
youth involved would be labeled as "rival sets'' by the police. Young people should not be
prohibiting by the injunction from taking part in such political, non-violent, community events.
8.
Another example of positive community work that would be undermined by the
injunction is a recent mural-painting event that took place on July 1 4 ' ~weekend at the comer of
~ 4and
' ~Capp streets. inside the "safety zone.' We brought community residents, including
youth and parents, young children and grandparents, together to paint a mural which depicts the
struggles of the Latino people and the history of organizing within the Latino community to fight
oppression. We offered food, music. and the opportunity to build community with one another.
The entire event was in public. If the injunction had been in place, individuals on the list would
not have been able to participate in this positive community event. The police drove by on
several occasions and generally took an intimidating posture towards our event. If the proposed
,/J
injunction is granted, the police will have more discretion to stop, question, and intimidate
DtCL,\RATION OF GUSTAVO LUPEZ
Case No CGC-07-464492
individuals whom they suspect are gang-affiliated, or "on the list,'' even when they are engaged in
positive community programs. This will drive people away from our programs and weaken the
support we can provide to at-risk youth.
9.
Since 2000: HOMEY has operated a silk-screening company called Native
Graphix, which produces its own art on t-shirts. We believe in using art as a form of political anc
cultural expression. We train youth in workshops on airbrushing, silk-screening, imagedesigning, and stenciling, and provide them with the kind of practical skills they need to become
economically self-sufficient. Individuals on the injunction list would be prohibited from
participating in training like that offered by Native Graphix, or the mural painting event described
above, because the injunction prohibits the possession of "graffiti tools." Our community events
and trainings -- having nothing to do with gang-related activity or graffiti -- cannot become an
excuse for the police to subject people to random searches.
10.
The proposed injunction will also damage the relationship between community
members and the police. Our youth workers and clients have already reported numerous
incidents in which the police and the Gang Task Force have used the injunction to harass and
intimidate people. For example, one young person working with HOMEY on outreach for the
mural-painting event was detained on the side of the road, thrown against a wall, and searched for
no apparent reason. The youth reported that the officer asked, "Why are you out here? Don't you
know there's a gang injunction in place?" Any positive relationship that existed with the police is
being torn apart by officers who are abusing the injunction.
11.
Finally, this injunction will not remedy gang violence in the Mission. Gangs are
caused by deplorable educational conditions, broken families, the lack of mental-health services
in our communities, inadequate rehabilitation and reentry programs, and economic distress. This
injunction does nothing to address any of the root causes of gang violence. The City Attorney is
giving this community false hope that the injunction will stop crime and violence. What it will
actually do is displace people to other communities, prevent them from receiving the support
services they need to address the violence in their own lives, and undermine violence-prevention
work in this community.
DECLAIMTION OF GUSTAVO LOPEZ
Case No CGC-07-464492
2
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct. Executed this
of San Francisco, California.
IECLARA I ION OF GUSTAVO LOPEZ
' a x No CGC-07-464492
day of September, 2007 in the City and County