At issue are two crucial points. First that those affected by the injunction were not given sufficient notice in order to challenge the injunction. Second whether or not the individuals filing the suit even have standing to sue.
The Sacramento Bee quotes ACLU Lawyer Ann Brick:
“This injunction left it up to the police to decide who is and who is not a gang member,” she said. Those stopped by police had to go into court to prove them wrong.
Reisig has countered that that four plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge the injuction because they have not admitted they are gang members and therefore the law does not directly affect them.
Yolo County Judge Thomas Warriner threw out the ACLU’s challenge on this basis.
The Sacramento Bee further reports:
After court, Reisig defended the method police used to notify alleged gang members of the injunction.
“When you serve one street terrorist, they’re all going to find out that the cops are coming,” he said.
Reisig, who was at the time a Deputy District Attorney, gave notice of the suit to just one of the alleged gang members. When neither that individual nor anyone else showed up in court, Warriner granted the injunction.
What is unclear to me is whether these individuals have been served with gang injunctions? If they have been, how could they not have standing to sue? If they have not been, why would they sue in the first place?
This from the Sacramento News and Review on December 1, 2005:
All four of the ACLU’s clients in the case claim that they are not members of the Broderick Boys gang. (In fact, many West Sacramento residents say there is no such thing as the Broderick Boys and that local police and prosecutors have exaggerated the existence of the supposed gang.) And all said they received no notice that the gang injunction was being sought in the courts or that they would be subject to its restrictions.
But Judge Warriner ruled that the four had no standing to challenge the law, because they claim they are not gang members. The injunction “binds only defendant Broderick Boys and its members and authorized representatives” wrote Warriner in his ruling.
Furthermore, he ruled, “any person who is charged with criminal contempt for violating the terms of the injunction is entitled to the protection of numerous rights when defending such a charge.”
This ruling makes no sense, given that the clients of the ACLU are claiming to have been directly affected by the injunction.
The judge’s logic exasperated opponents of the injunction. Jory Steele, an attorney with the ACLU, said, “Obviously, we vehemently disagree with the judge’s ruling. Our clients were indeed directly affected by the injunction.” Directly affected because they have been labeled as gang members by police and prosecutors and because–even though they deny gang membership–they nevertheless risk arrest if they are stopped by police after 10 p.m. in West Sacramento or if they are seen in public with anyone else identified as a Broderick Boy.
So again–if these individuals have been served by the injunction–how do they not have standing? Why do they need to have admitted they were gang members in order to have standing?
Once that is question is decided, then the issue of the constitutionality of the Gang Injunction can be addressed. We can debate that issue further as we did back as we did last month.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Prediction-Warriner’s decision will be overturned on appeal. It clearly smacks of “catch-22” legal reasoning. Reisig’s statement about “street terrorists” is telling as the civil rights abuses sanctioned by Warriner spring from the same well as the other tramplings of civil rights that we are seeing in this so-called War on Terror.
Prediction-Warriner’s decision will be overturned on appeal. It clearly smacks of “catch-22” legal reasoning. Reisig’s statement about “street terrorists” is telling as the civil rights abuses sanctioned by Warriner spring from the same well as the other tramplings of civil rights that we are seeing in this so-called War on Terror.
Prediction-Warriner’s decision will be overturned on appeal. It clearly smacks of “catch-22” legal reasoning. Reisig’s statement about “street terrorists” is telling as the civil rights abuses sanctioned by Warriner spring from the same well as the other tramplings of civil rights that we are seeing in this so-called War on Terror.
Prediction-Warriner’s decision will be overturned on appeal. It clearly smacks of “catch-22” legal reasoning. Reisig’s statement about “street terrorists” is telling as the civil rights abuses sanctioned by Warriner spring from the same well as the other tramplings of civil rights that we are seeing in this so-called War on Terror.
Reisig is doing a good job filling in as the Jr. DA Henderson. Same civil rights abuses, same MO of filling the courts with cases that should not be flooding the courts in the first place.
Yolo Courts along with the DA’s office have needed an overhaul for a long time.
Reisig is doing a good job filling in as the Jr. DA Henderson. Same civil rights abuses, same MO of filling the courts with cases that should not be flooding the courts in the first place.
Yolo Courts along with the DA’s office have needed an overhaul for a long time.
Reisig is doing a good job filling in as the Jr. DA Henderson. Same civil rights abuses, same MO of filling the courts with cases that should not be flooding the courts in the first place.
Yolo Courts along with the DA’s office have needed an overhaul for a long time.
Reisig is doing a good job filling in as the Jr. DA Henderson. Same civil rights abuses, same MO of filling the courts with cases that should not be flooding the courts in the first place.
Yolo Courts along with the DA’s office have needed an overhaul for a long time.
Although it should not be the only consideration, what should be an important consideration in evaluating the anti-gangster injunction in West Sac is how this policy has affected criminality in Broderick and Bryte. I don’t know the statistics. But if they do show that what Mr. Reisig has instituted has had the effect of making life better for many of the would be victims and gangsterism, then that should be weighed into the equation. If, on the other hand, this action has made no dent in criminal behavior — sometimes heavy handed actions in one place move the crimes to another location — then suppressing the freedom of association rights of these alleged gangsters seems not only unwarranted, but pointless.
Although it should not be the only consideration, what should be an important consideration in evaluating the anti-gangster injunction in West Sac is how this policy has affected criminality in Broderick and Bryte. I don’t know the statistics. But if they do show that what Mr. Reisig has instituted has had the effect of making life better for many of the would be victims and gangsterism, then that should be weighed into the equation. If, on the other hand, this action has made no dent in criminal behavior — sometimes heavy handed actions in one place move the crimes to another location — then suppressing the freedom of association rights of these alleged gangsters seems not only unwarranted, but pointless.
Although it should not be the only consideration, what should be an important consideration in evaluating the anti-gangster injunction in West Sac is how this policy has affected criminality in Broderick and Bryte. I don’t know the statistics. But if they do show that what Mr. Reisig has instituted has had the effect of making life better for many of the would be victims and gangsterism, then that should be weighed into the equation. If, on the other hand, this action has made no dent in criminal behavior — sometimes heavy handed actions in one place move the crimes to another location — then suppressing the freedom of association rights of these alleged gangsters seems not only unwarranted, but pointless.
Although it should not be the only consideration, what should be an important consideration in evaluating the anti-gangster injunction in West Sac is how this policy has affected criminality in Broderick and Bryte. I don’t know the statistics. But if they do show that what Mr. Reisig has instituted has had the effect of making life better for many of the would be victims and gangsterism, then that should be weighed into the equation. If, on the other hand, this action has made no dent in criminal behavior — sometimes heavy handed actions in one place move the crimes to another location — then suppressing the freedom of association rights of these alleged gangsters seems not only unwarranted, but pointless.
“…the would be victims and gangsterism…”
Make that, “…the would be victims of gangsters…”
“…the would be victims and gangsterism…”
Make that, “…the would be victims of gangsters…”
“…the would be victims and gangsterism…”
Make that, “…the would be victims of gangsters…”
“…the would be victims and gangsterism…”
Make that, “…the would be victims of gangsters…”
For me there are still two issues–one is the issue of standing to sue and I just don’t understand how someone who has been enjoined (I think that’s the word) by the legal policy cannot challenge the law. Second is the issue of due process of law. Why would a police officer or a prosecutor be able to deprive people of liberty without due process of law–which is a jury of the peers?
For me there are still two issues–one is the issue of standing to sue and I just don’t understand how someone who has been enjoined (I think that’s the word) by the legal policy cannot challenge the law. Second is the issue of due process of law. Why would a police officer or a prosecutor be able to deprive people of liberty without due process of law–which is a jury of the peers?
For me there are still two issues–one is the issue of standing to sue and I just don’t understand how someone who has been enjoined (I think that’s the word) by the legal policy cannot challenge the law. Second is the issue of due process of law. Why would a police officer or a prosecutor be able to deprive people of liberty without due process of law–which is a jury of the peers?
For me there are still two issues–one is the issue of standing to sue and I just don’t understand how someone who has been enjoined (I think that’s the word) by the legal policy cannot challenge the law. Second is the issue of due process of law. Why would a police officer or a prosecutor be able to deprive people of liberty without due process of law–which is a jury of the peers?