“In her six-page ruling, White said prosecutors had shown “by clear and convincing evidence” that they probably would prevail at trial on whether broad and long-lasting restrictions were needed to combat gang crime in the Broderick and Bryte neighborhoods.
The potential harm to the defendants – including two dozen alleged gang members named by prosecutors and up to 400 unnamed individuals – was outweighed by the harm to the community if the injunction had not been issued, White wrote.”
On the other hand there were some limitations to the injunction:
“But White also said the criteria proposed by prosecutors for identifying gang members were overly broad and “would likely result in the curtailment of the rights” of residents who had little or no connection with gangs.
She limited the injunction to active gang members, including those who admitted to being Broderick Boys or were named by reliable informants as gang members.
Included under the judge’s order are those who have tattoos associated with the Broderick Boys.”
Civil rights attorney Joshua Kaizuka believes that the police still have very broad discretion in identifying who a Broderick Boy is and to curtail their civil rights.
Now that the preliminary injunction is in place, there will be a trial to determine if a permanent court order should be issued.
Commentary:
I remain concerned as Mr. Kaizuka does, that the police have very broad discretion in identifying who a Broderick Boy is. There have been numerous complaints by citizens that this injunction has led to the curtailment of the rights of residents who are not affiliated with gangs. This is reinforced by comments made by the Judge here.
The criteria put forward by the Judge remain overly broad. Those who admit to being Broderick Boys–does that mean under some formalized process or could they simply be compelled to sign a waiver as a condition of release from prison on a minor charge? This has been an accusation put forward by opponents of the injunction. Those named by “reliable” informants seems even more broad and more subject to problems.
Is there some kind of procedure where a person affected by the injunction can appeal that? Since this is a civil penalty, they are not entitled to court appointed representation. As a result, top caliber lawyers such as Mark Merin, Joshua Kaizuka and others have volunteered their time. Future defendants likely would not have access to top notch representation if at all.
My final problem remains with the process–it turns the justice system on its head by removing the due process of law requirement for loss of liberty while at the same time making it a civil procedure rather than a criminal one, meaning there is no right to an attorney.
I simply cannot get passed these waiving of cherished constitutional principles. People have repeatedly in response to these arguments suggested that gang members are bad people and questioned whether I have witnessed their wrath first hand. I have no doubt in the world that some of these gang members are bad people, but I believe even really bad people are entitled to due process. I also believe as Judge White seems to that this net will catch not only really bad people but people who really are not bad at all. That troubles me greatly. I would think there could be procedures put in place to allow the bad people to be prevented from associating with gangs while at the same time give the good people a chance not to get caught up in the net. It is hard to believe that this is a radical notion, but for some it seems to be.
Judge White spoke repeatedly about trying to avoid allowing the political to get into the courtroom–an admirable stance. However, at the end of the day, it is the legal and the constitutional aspects of this that remain most troubling to this non-lawyer.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
I hope Judge White clearly understands it was the DA’s office that interjected politics into this. All along, the priority has been to make an anti-crime political statement with little or no regard to the people adversly/wrongly affected by the injunction. I do not think many people have a problem with the concept of an injunction, they just want it to impact the right group of people. After years of consideration (or lack of)by the DA’s office Judge White had to make this ruling-
“White also said the criteria proposed by prosecutors for identifying gang members were overly broad and would likely result in the curtailment of the rights of residents who had little or no connection with gangs.
She limited the injunction to active gang members, including those who admitted to being Broderick Boys or were named by reliable informants as gang members.”
In other words Judge White insists the gang injunction should only be applied to real gang members. Duh! I wonder why it has taken 3 years for the Yolo “justice system” to figure that out. SAH
I hope Judge White clearly understands it was the DA’s office that interjected politics into this. All along, the priority has been to make an anti-crime political statement with little or no regard to the people adversly/wrongly affected by the injunction. I do not think many people have a problem with the concept of an injunction, they just want it to impact the right group of people. After years of consideration (or lack of)by the DA’s office Judge White had to make this ruling-
“White also said the criteria proposed by prosecutors for identifying gang members were overly broad and would likely result in the curtailment of the rights of residents who had little or no connection with gangs.
She limited the injunction to active gang members, including those who admitted to being Broderick Boys or were named by reliable informants as gang members.”
In other words Judge White insists the gang injunction should only be applied to real gang members. Duh! I wonder why it has taken 3 years for the Yolo “justice system” to figure that out. SAH
I hope Judge White clearly understands it was the DA’s office that interjected politics into this. All along, the priority has been to make an anti-crime political statement with little or no regard to the people adversly/wrongly affected by the injunction. I do not think many people have a problem with the concept of an injunction, they just want it to impact the right group of people. After years of consideration (or lack of)by the DA’s office Judge White had to make this ruling-
“White also said the criteria proposed by prosecutors for identifying gang members were overly broad and would likely result in the curtailment of the rights of residents who had little or no connection with gangs.
She limited the injunction to active gang members, including those who admitted to being Broderick Boys or were named by reliable informants as gang members.”
In other words Judge White insists the gang injunction should only be applied to real gang members. Duh! I wonder why it has taken 3 years for the Yolo “justice system” to figure that out. SAH
I hope Judge White clearly understands it was the DA’s office that interjected politics into this. All along, the priority has been to make an anti-crime political statement with little or no regard to the people adversly/wrongly affected by the injunction. I do not think many people have a problem with the concept of an injunction, they just want it to impact the right group of people. After years of consideration (or lack of)by the DA’s office Judge White had to make this ruling-
“White also said the criteria proposed by prosecutors for identifying gang members were overly broad and would likely result in the curtailment of the rights of residents who had little or no connection with gangs.
She limited the injunction to active gang members, including those who admitted to being Broderick Boys or were named by reliable informants as gang members.”
In other words Judge White insists the gang injunction should only be applied to real gang members. Duh! I wonder why it has taken 3 years for the Yolo “justice system” to figure that out. SAH
This is great! It is about time that the police can do what they need to do to prevent crime. So the bleeding hearts want to protect some rights….hey as long as the rest of us feel protected, what is the harm right?
Kudos to the Mayor and Police Department for letting everyone know that there are so many people in West Sacramento who are afraid to come out of their homes needing protection. The Mayor and city council members along with the chief of police must have done an excellent job of getting community input resulting in advocating that the Mayor’s office and police department are completely inaffective in their duties to police the three square mile area of Broderick, Bryte, and of course the City Hall. There must have been a finding by the City that there was so much criminal activity resulting in an “urban war zone” that there was no other way to combat the situation. With all of the constant murders, shootings, organized drug dealing, and other crimes for the benefit of the “most powerful” gang in West Sacrament with 400 members, there is no doubt that such a criminal enterprise must be stopped. Undoubtedly, there must have been a very comprehensive study done by the Mayor and the city council as well as the Yolo Board of Supervisors to authorize this endeavor by the Yolo District Attorney’s Office since the DA’s office works for the “people.”
It is great that the government has more power and discretion, who are we the citizens to know if there is a problem in West Sacramento…if the government says so, it must be true right?
It isn’t like a bunch of misfits or wannabe kids or people who are completely disorganized, but a powerful and structured organization right?
Let the Mayor and police make efforts to prevent crime in any way possible. Make everyone afraid to be “outside” or in a “public place” because if no one is there, nothing can happen! This is great proactive enforcement and no one should complain because it will keep everyone safe if no one is outside or in a public place other than the police.
Oh wait…that was Hitler and the extreme totalitarian countries…the police states….the ones that profiled people….not that any of the West Sacramento Police would ever violate the United States Constitution by conducting unlawful detentions, searches, excessive use of force, and seizures just because you fit a profile…..never mind because it could never happen in a country founded on guaranteed rights.
Not that there hasn’t been the type and consistancy of crime across the river in Sacramento…where are the murders, the constant shooting for gang purposes, the fights for gang purposes, or drug dealing for gang purposes in West Sacramento? The big bust a few weeks ago had nothing to do with any alleged member of the Broderick Boys….yet, the wide net has been cast.
This is great! It is about time that the police can do what they need to do to prevent crime. So the bleeding hearts want to protect some rights….hey as long as the rest of us feel protected, what is the harm right?
Kudos to the Mayor and Police Department for letting everyone know that there are so many people in West Sacramento who are afraid to come out of their homes needing protection. The Mayor and city council members along with the chief of police must have done an excellent job of getting community input resulting in advocating that the Mayor’s office and police department are completely inaffective in their duties to police the three square mile area of Broderick, Bryte, and of course the City Hall. There must have been a finding by the City that there was so much criminal activity resulting in an “urban war zone” that there was no other way to combat the situation. With all of the constant murders, shootings, organized drug dealing, and other crimes for the benefit of the “most powerful” gang in West Sacrament with 400 members, there is no doubt that such a criminal enterprise must be stopped. Undoubtedly, there must have been a very comprehensive study done by the Mayor and the city council as well as the Yolo Board of Supervisors to authorize this endeavor by the Yolo District Attorney’s Office since the DA’s office works for the “people.”
It is great that the government has more power and discretion, who are we the citizens to know if there is a problem in West Sacramento…if the government says so, it must be true right?
It isn’t like a bunch of misfits or wannabe kids or people who are completely disorganized, but a powerful and structured organization right?
Let the Mayor and police make efforts to prevent crime in any way possible. Make everyone afraid to be “outside” or in a “public place” because if no one is there, nothing can happen! This is great proactive enforcement and no one should complain because it will keep everyone safe if no one is outside or in a public place other than the police.
Oh wait…that was Hitler and the extreme totalitarian countries…the police states….the ones that profiled people….not that any of the West Sacramento Police would ever violate the United States Constitution by conducting unlawful detentions, searches, excessive use of force, and seizures just because you fit a profile…..never mind because it could never happen in a country founded on guaranteed rights.
Not that there hasn’t been the type and consistancy of crime across the river in Sacramento…where are the murders, the constant shooting for gang purposes, the fights for gang purposes, or drug dealing for gang purposes in West Sacramento? The big bust a few weeks ago had nothing to do with any alleged member of the Broderick Boys….yet, the wide net has been cast.
This is great! It is about time that the police can do what they need to do to prevent crime. So the bleeding hearts want to protect some rights….hey as long as the rest of us feel protected, what is the harm right?
Kudos to the Mayor and Police Department for letting everyone know that there are so many people in West Sacramento who are afraid to come out of their homes needing protection. The Mayor and city council members along with the chief of police must have done an excellent job of getting community input resulting in advocating that the Mayor’s office and police department are completely inaffective in their duties to police the three square mile area of Broderick, Bryte, and of course the City Hall. There must have been a finding by the City that there was so much criminal activity resulting in an “urban war zone” that there was no other way to combat the situation. With all of the constant murders, shootings, organized drug dealing, and other crimes for the benefit of the “most powerful” gang in West Sacrament with 400 members, there is no doubt that such a criminal enterprise must be stopped. Undoubtedly, there must have been a very comprehensive study done by the Mayor and the city council as well as the Yolo Board of Supervisors to authorize this endeavor by the Yolo District Attorney’s Office since the DA’s office works for the “people.”
It is great that the government has more power and discretion, who are we the citizens to know if there is a problem in West Sacramento…if the government says so, it must be true right?
It isn’t like a bunch of misfits or wannabe kids or people who are completely disorganized, but a powerful and structured organization right?
Let the Mayor and police make efforts to prevent crime in any way possible. Make everyone afraid to be “outside” or in a “public place” because if no one is there, nothing can happen! This is great proactive enforcement and no one should complain because it will keep everyone safe if no one is outside or in a public place other than the police.
Oh wait…that was Hitler and the extreme totalitarian countries…the police states….the ones that profiled people….not that any of the West Sacramento Police would ever violate the United States Constitution by conducting unlawful detentions, searches, excessive use of force, and seizures just because you fit a profile…..never mind because it could never happen in a country founded on guaranteed rights.
Not that there hasn’t been the type and consistancy of crime across the river in Sacramento…where are the murders, the constant shooting for gang purposes, the fights for gang purposes, or drug dealing for gang purposes in West Sacramento? The big bust a few weeks ago had nothing to do with any alleged member of the Broderick Boys….yet, the wide net has been cast.
This is great! It is about time that the police can do what they need to do to prevent crime. So the bleeding hearts want to protect some rights….hey as long as the rest of us feel protected, what is the harm right?
Kudos to the Mayor and Police Department for letting everyone know that there are so many people in West Sacramento who are afraid to come out of their homes needing protection. The Mayor and city council members along with the chief of police must have done an excellent job of getting community input resulting in advocating that the Mayor’s office and police department are completely inaffective in their duties to police the three square mile area of Broderick, Bryte, and of course the City Hall. There must have been a finding by the City that there was so much criminal activity resulting in an “urban war zone” that there was no other way to combat the situation. With all of the constant murders, shootings, organized drug dealing, and other crimes for the benefit of the “most powerful” gang in West Sacrament with 400 members, there is no doubt that such a criminal enterprise must be stopped. Undoubtedly, there must have been a very comprehensive study done by the Mayor and the city council as well as the Yolo Board of Supervisors to authorize this endeavor by the Yolo District Attorney’s Office since the DA’s office works for the “people.”
It is great that the government has more power and discretion, who are we the citizens to know if there is a problem in West Sacramento…if the government says so, it must be true right?
It isn’t like a bunch of misfits or wannabe kids or people who are completely disorganized, but a powerful and structured organization right?
Let the Mayor and police make efforts to prevent crime in any way possible. Make everyone afraid to be “outside” or in a “public place” because if no one is there, nothing can happen! This is great proactive enforcement and no one should complain because it will keep everyone safe if no one is outside or in a public place other than the police.
Oh wait…that was Hitler and the extreme totalitarian countries…the police states….the ones that profiled people….not that any of the West Sacramento Police would ever violate the United States Constitution by conducting unlawful detentions, searches, excessive use of force, and seizures just because you fit a profile…..never mind because it could never happen in a country founded on guaranteed rights.
Not that there hasn’t been the type and consistancy of crime across the river in Sacramento…where are the murders, the constant shooting for gang purposes, the fights for gang purposes, or drug dealing for gang purposes in West Sacramento? The big bust a few weeks ago had nothing to do with any alleged member of the Broderick Boys….yet, the wide net has been cast.
DPD,
Can you give a number for “numerous complaints”? How about your speculation that someone is”Compelled” to sign some sort of claim of gang membership when incarcerated for a crime? You mentioned,”Informants”. What does it take to make someone a reliable informant?
Typical of your blog you merely throw out something you thought up and present it as the truth. You are clueless about life on the streets and about the criminal and lying sector referred to as “gang members”. I’ve been there.
Unfortunately I can’t vote in Davis because I sure would’nt vote for cecilia knowing who would be behind her making stuff up.
DPD,
Can you give a number for “numerous complaints”? How about your speculation that someone is”Compelled” to sign some sort of claim of gang membership when incarcerated for a crime? You mentioned,”Informants”. What does it take to make someone a reliable informant?
Typical of your blog you merely throw out something you thought up and present it as the truth. You are clueless about life on the streets and about the criminal and lying sector referred to as “gang members”. I’ve been there.
Unfortunately I can’t vote in Davis because I sure would’nt vote for cecilia knowing who would be behind her making stuff up.
DPD,
Can you give a number for “numerous complaints”? How about your speculation that someone is”Compelled” to sign some sort of claim of gang membership when incarcerated for a crime? You mentioned,”Informants”. What does it take to make someone a reliable informant?
Typical of your blog you merely throw out something you thought up and present it as the truth. You are clueless about life on the streets and about the criminal and lying sector referred to as “gang members”. I’ve been there.
Unfortunately I can’t vote in Davis because I sure would’nt vote for cecilia knowing who would be behind her making stuff up.
DPD,
Can you give a number for “numerous complaints”? How about your speculation that someone is”Compelled” to sign some sort of claim of gang membership when incarcerated for a crime? You mentioned,”Informants”. What does it take to make someone a reliable informant?
Typical of your blog you merely throw out something you thought up and present it as the truth. You are clueless about life on the streets and about the criminal and lying sector referred to as “gang members”. I’ve been there.
Unfortunately I can’t vote in Davis because I sure would’nt vote for cecilia knowing who would be behind her making stuff up.
Judge Kathleen White identified the crux of the problem that many citizens have with ” the gang injunction”. Yolo County’s identification of “gang members”; “gang crimes” and/or ” gang associates” has been so broad that its a crime in and of itself.
Being a “Bleeding heart liberal” has absolutely nothing to do with my statement either. The fact of the matter is that I agree REAL “gang members” engaged in criminal behavior should be stopped. Perhaps, the criteria that counties with gang problems employ and experts they hire to identify who is and is not a gang member should be examined by Yolo county. Until then,
Young men (or women for that matter) who are not gang members, but fit some stereotype because of who their family members are; what they look like, the music they listen to, and/ or their race will continue to be caught in Yolo County’s ” wide casted net.”
As to the previous blogger, people are compelled to sign all kinds of things to avoid incarceration or lengthy sentences. With the advent of DNA evidence, there have been many inmates exonerated for crimes they did not commit. Amazing, huh?
You sound “clueless” about life’s reality for people who are profiled and targeted.
Judge Kathleen White identified the crux of the problem that many citizens have with ” the gang injunction”. Yolo County’s identification of “gang members”; “gang crimes” and/or ” gang associates” has been so broad that its a crime in and of itself.
Being a “Bleeding heart liberal” has absolutely nothing to do with my statement either. The fact of the matter is that I agree REAL “gang members” engaged in criminal behavior should be stopped. Perhaps, the criteria that counties with gang problems employ and experts they hire to identify who is and is not a gang member should be examined by Yolo county. Until then,
Young men (or women for that matter) who are not gang members, but fit some stereotype because of who their family members are; what they look like, the music they listen to, and/ or their race will continue to be caught in Yolo County’s ” wide casted net.”
As to the previous blogger, people are compelled to sign all kinds of things to avoid incarceration or lengthy sentences. With the advent of DNA evidence, there have been many inmates exonerated for crimes they did not commit. Amazing, huh?
You sound “clueless” about life’s reality for people who are profiled and targeted.
Judge Kathleen White identified the crux of the problem that many citizens have with ” the gang injunction”. Yolo County’s identification of “gang members”; “gang crimes” and/or ” gang associates” has been so broad that its a crime in and of itself.
Being a “Bleeding heart liberal” has absolutely nothing to do with my statement either. The fact of the matter is that I agree REAL “gang members” engaged in criminal behavior should be stopped. Perhaps, the criteria that counties with gang problems employ and experts they hire to identify who is and is not a gang member should be examined by Yolo county. Until then,
Young men (or women for that matter) who are not gang members, but fit some stereotype because of who their family members are; what they look like, the music they listen to, and/ or their race will continue to be caught in Yolo County’s ” wide casted net.”
As to the previous blogger, people are compelled to sign all kinds of things to avoid incarceration or lengthy sentences. With the advent of DNA evidence, there have been many inmates exonerated for crimes they did not commit. Amazing, huh?
You sound “clueless” about life’s reality for people who are profiled and targeted.
Judge Kathleen White identified the crux of the problem that many citizens have with ” the gang injunction”. Yolo County’s identification of “gang members”; “gang crimes” and/or ” gang associates” has been so broad that its a crime in and of itself.
Being a “Bleeding heart liberal” has absolutely nothing to do with my statement either. The fact of the matter is that I agree REAL “gang members” engaged in criminal behavior should be stopped. Perhaps, the criteria that counties with gang problems employ and experts they hire to identify who is and is not a gang member should be examined by Yolo county. Until then,
Young men (or women for that matter) who are not gang members, but fit some stereotype because of who their family members are; what they look like, the music they listen to, and/ or their race will continue to be caught in Yolo County’s ” wide casted net.”
As to the previous blogger, people are compelled to sign all kinds of things to avoid incarceration or lengthy sentences. With the advent of DNA evidence, there have been many inmates exonerated for crimes they did not commit. Amazing, huh?
You sound “clueless” about life’s reality for people who are profiled and targeted.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. What you see developing here is the normal process of getting an injunction correct constitutionally. It is not uncommon for the DA’s Office to overreach; there is a correction through the court system; the plaintiff (DA) goes back to the drawing board and makes corrections based on the court’s objections, and put forth a revised injunction. I suspect we will have a few more rounds of this, before the DA’s Office finally gets it right.
Frankly, it is not always easy to determine where to draw the line between individual rights and the safety of the community as a whole. It seems pretty clear some sort of gang injunction is needed, but due process rights must be protected as well. I don’t see this as quite the nefarious maneuvering that DPD does, because as an attorney, I see this sort of thing go on all the time. It is the natural progression of events within the judicial branch. Essentially the DA’s Office is trying to create a tool with which to fight the gang problem, and the court system is going to make sure the tool is employed by the DA’s Office fairly.
I see this as a separate issue from whether the DA’s Office has been engaging in some unsavory practices of its own. There are some disturbing examples of overreaching that I have seen myself, that I find very troubling. Because the DA’s Office works in concert with law enforcement, it makes the overstepping of bounds even more troubling. I know of instances where no crime has been committed, but the DA makes sure to obtain at least a misdemeanor plea to save face for itself and law enforcement. Local police have engaged in questionable interrogation techniques, that are blatantly unconstitutional.
If you think this is unique to Yolo County, guess again. It goes on all over the country. It is the natural tension between individual rights, and community safety. Again, lines are never that clearcut. But we need to demand better from law enforcement and the DA’s Office. A prime example of this sort of thing was the questioning of Monica Lewinsky. Setting political issues aside, 17 FBI agents swooped down on Ms. Lewinsky and took her to a room for questioning. She could have left at any time, but as a practical matter, I doubt she felt she could have. The FBI agents exploited her ignorance, and browbeat her into “talking”.
What is worrisome is the power wielded by law enforcement, and the old adage “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. There is an infamous case in the annals of the FBI, in which a father of four children was sent to jail on the word of an FBI informant. The FBI at some point knew the man was innocent, but felt it was more important to protect the informant, who gave them invaluable information. At some point, the informant went on to kill three people. The innocent father spent 25 years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit.
When the entire scandal was brought to light, and hearings were held in Congress, the FBI agents involved were not in any way apologetic. Nor were they brought up on charges either. They robbed a father of four from 25 years of his life with his wife and children, yet felt no remorse. It doesn’t get much worse than that. But my question is where was the public outrage?
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. What you see developing here is the normal process of getting an injunction correct constitutionally. It is not uncommon for the DA’s Office to overreach; there is a correction through the court system; the plaintiff (DA) goes back to the drawing board and makes corrections based on the court’s objections, and put forth a revised injunction. I suspect we will have a few more rounds of this, before the DA’s Office finally gets it right.
Frankly, it is not always easy to determine where to draw the line between individual rights and the safety of the community as a whole. It seems pretty clear some sort of gang injunction is needed, but due process rights must be protected as well. I don’t see this as quite the nefarious maneuvering that DPD does, because as an attorney, I see this sort of thing go on all the time. It is the natural progression of events within the judicial branch. Essentially the DA’s Office is trying to create a tool with which to fight the gang problem, and the court system is going to make sure the tool is employed by the DA’s Office fairly.
I see this as a separate issue from whether the DA’s Office has been engaging in some unsavory practices of its own. There are some disturbing examples of overreaching that I have seen myself, that I find very troubling. Because the DA’s Office works in concert with law enforcement, it makes the overstepping of bounds even more troubling. I know of instances where no crime has been committed, but the DA makes sure to obtain at least a misdemeanor plea to save face for itself and law enforcement. Local police have engaged in questionable interrogation techniques, that are blatantly unconstitutional.
If you think this is unique to Yolo County, guess again. It goes on all over the country. It is the natural tension between individual rights, and community safety. Again, lines are never that clearcut. But we need to demand better from law enforcement and the DA’s Office. A prime example of this sort of thing was the questioning of Monica Lewinsky. Setting political issues aside, 17 FBI agents swooped down on Ms. Lewinsky and took her to a room for questioning. She could have left at any time, but as a practical matter, I doubt she felt she could have. The FBI agents exploited her ignorance, and browbeat her into “talking”.
What is worrisome is the power wielded by law enforcement, and the old adage “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. There is an infamous case in the annals of the FBI, in which a father of four children was sent to jail on the word of an FBI informant. The FBI at some point knew the man was innocent, but felt it was more important to protect the informant, who gave them invaluable information. At some point, the informant went on to kill three people. The innocent father spent 25 years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit.
When the entire scandal was brought to light, and hearings were held in Congress, the FBI agents involved were not in any way apologetic. Nor were they brought up on charges either. They robbed a father of four from 25 years of his life with his wife and children, yet felt no remorse. It doesn’t get much worse than that. But my question is where was the public outrage?
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. What you see developing here is the normal process of getting an injunction correct constitutionally. It is not uncommon for the DA’s Office to overreach; there is a correction through the court system; the plaintiff (DA) goes back to the drawing board and makes corrections based on the court’s objections, and put forth a revised injunction. I suspect we will have a few more rounds of this, before the DA’s Office finally gets it right.
Frankly, it is not always easy to determine where to draw the line between individual rights and the safety of the community as a whole. It seems pretty clear some sort of gang injunction is needed, but due process rights must be protected as well. I don’t see this as quite the nefarious maneuvering that DPD does, because as an attorney, I see this sort of thing go on all the time. It is the natural progression of events within the judicial branch. Essentially the DA’s Office is trying to create a tool with which to fight the gang problem, and the court system is going to make sure the tool is employed by the DA’s Office fairly.
I see this as a separate issue from whether the DA’s Office has been engaging in some unsavory practices of its own. There are some disturbing examples of overreaching that I have seen myself, that I find very troubling. Because the DA’s Office works in concert with law enforcement, it makes the overstepping of bounds even more troubling. I know of instances where no crime has been committed, but the DA makes sure to obtain at least a misdemeanor plea to save face for itself and law enforcement. Local police have engaged in questionable interrogation techniques, that are blatantly unconstitutional.
If you think this is unique to Yolo County, guess again. It goes on all over the country. It is the natural tension between individual rights, and community safety. Again, lines are never that clearcut. But we need to demand better from law enforcement and the DA’s Office. A prime example of this sort of thing was the questioning of Monica Lewinsky. Setting political issues aside, 17 FBI agents swooped down on Ms. Lewinsky and took her to a room for questioning. She could have left at any time, but as a practical matter, I doubt she felt she could have. The FBI agents exploited her ignorance, and browbeat her into “talking”.
What is worrisome is the power wielded by law enforcement, and the old adage “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. There is an infamous case in the annals of the FBI, in which a father of four children was sent to jail on the word of an FBI informant. The FBI at some point knew the man was innocent, but felt it was more important to protect the informant, who gave them invaluable information. At some point, the informant went on to kill three people. The innocent father spent 25 years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit.
When the entire scandal was brought to light, and hearings were held in Congress, the FBI agents involved were not in any way apologetic. Nor were they brought up on charges either. They robbed a father of four from 25 years of his life with his wife and children, yet felt no remorse. It doesn’t get much worse than that. But my question is where was the public outrage?
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. What you see developing here is the normal process of getting an injunction correct constitutionally. It is not uncommon for the DA’s Office to overreach; there is a correction through the court system; the plaintiff (DA) goes back to the drawing board and makes corrections based on the court’s objections, and put forth a revised injunction. I suspect we will have a few more rounds of this, before the DA’s Office finally gets it right.
Frankly, it is not always easy to determine where to draw the line between individual rights and the safety of the community as a whole. It seems pretty clear some sort of gang injunction is needed, but due process rights must be protected as well. I don’t see this as quite the nefarious maneuvering that DPD does, because as an attorney, I see this sort of thing go on all the time. It is the natural progression of events within the judicial branch. Essentially the DA’s Office is trying to create a tool with which to fight the gang problem, and the court system is going to make sure the tool is employed by the DA’s Office fairly.
I see this as a separate issue from whether the DA’s Office has been engaging in some unsavory practices of its own. There are some disturbing examples of overreaching that I have seen myself, that I find very troubling. Because the DA’s Office works in concert with law enforcement, it makes the overstepping of bounds even more troubling. I know of instances where no crime has been committed, but the DA makes sure to obtain at least a misdemeanor plea to save face for itself and law enforcement. Local police have engaged in questionable interrogation techniques, that are blatantly unconstitutional.
If you think this is unique to Yolo County, guess again. It goes on all over the country. It is the natural tension between individual rights, and community safety. Again, lines are never that clearcut. But we need to demand better from law enforcement and the DA’s Office. A prime example of this sort of thing was the questioning of Monica Lewinsky. Setting political issues aside, 17 FBI agents swooped down on Ms. Lewinsky and took her to a room for questioning. She could have left at any time, but as a practical matter, I doubt she felt she could have. The FBI agents exploited her ignorance, and browbeat her into “talking”.
What is worrisome is the power wielded by law enforcement, and the old adage “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. There is an infamous case in the annals of the FBI, in which a father of four children was sent to jail on the word of an FBI informant. The FBI at some point knew the man was innocent, but felt it was more important to protect the informant, who gave them invaluable information. At some point, the informant went on to kill three people. The innocent father spent 25 years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit.
When the entire scandal was brought to light, and hearings were held in Congress, the FBI agents involved were not in any way apologetic. Nor were they brought up on charges either. They robbed a father of four from 25 years of his life with his wife and children, yet felt no remorse. It doesn’t get much worse than that. But my question is where was the public outrage?
Thank you for your insight.
It is, however, the ” saving face” at the DA’s Office that has me most concerned. When a net is cast so far out that it catches people it shouldn’t, that’s too far.
When ” informants'” lies are used to implicate the innocent so that the DA’s Office can ” save face”, that’s too far.
When anyone is arrested under false pretense, prosecuted, and incarcerated because of the problems in our law enforcement and judicial systems, that is too far.
I cringe at the thought of how many people are rotting away in State Prisons because the DA’s Office is ” overreaching” until it can get it right.
Thank you for your insight.
It is, however, the ” saving face” at the DA’s Office that has me most concerned. When a net is cast so far out that it catches people it shouldn’t, that’s too far.
When ” informants'” lies are used to implicate the innocent so that the DA’s Office can ” save face”, that’s too far.
When anyone is arrested under false pretense, prosecuted, and incarcerated because of the problems in our law enforcement and judicial systems, that is too far.
I cringe at the thought of how many people are rotting away in State Prisons because the DA’s Office is ” overreaching” until it can get it right.
Thank you for your insight.
It is, however, the ” saving face” at the DA’s Office that has me most concerned. When a net is cast so far out that it catches people it shouldn’t, that’s too far.
When ” informants'” lies are used to implicate the innocent so that the DA’s Office can ” save face”, that’s too far.
When anyone is arrested under false pretense, prosecuted, and incarcerated because of the problems in our law enforcement and judicial systems, that is too far.
I cringe at the thought of how many people are rotting away in State Prisons because the DA’s Office is ” overreaching” until it can get it right.
Thank you for your insight.
It is, however, the ” saving face” at the DA’s Office that has me most concerned. When a net is cast so far out that it catches people it shouldn’t, that’s too far.
When ” informants'” lies are used to implicate the innocent so that the DA’s Office can ” save face”, that’s too far.
When anyone is arrested under false pretense, prosecuted, and incarcerated because of the problems in our law enforcement and judicial systems, that is too far.
I cringe at the thought of how many people are rotting away in State Prisons because the DA’s Office is ” overreaching” until it can get it right.
NUKE EM ALL…….
NUKE EM ALL…….
NUKE EM ALL…….
NUKE EM ALL…….
what a load of crap these injuctions are !! if they are commiting all these crimes that the police say why dont they arrest them!! now they have started to erod peoples rights by not letting them congrate together for a drink or to socalise!this is only the begining of the end for the constitution that we live by!!who knows ure rights might be next!!
what a load of crap these injuctions are !! if they are commiting all these crimes that the police say why dont they arrest them!! now they have started to erod peoples rights by not letting them congrate together for a drink or to socalise!this is only the begining of the end for the constitution that we live by!!who knows ure rights might be next!!
what a load of crap these injuctions are !! if they are commiting all these crimes that the police say why dont they arrest them!! now they have started to erod peoples rights by not letting them congrate together for a drink or to socalise!this is only the begining of the end for the constitution that we live by!!who knows ure rights might be next!!
what a load of crap these injuctions are !! if they are commiting all these crimes that the police say why dont they arrest them!! now they have started to erod peoples rights by not letting them congrate together for a drink or to socalise!this is only the begining of the end for the constitution that we live by!!who knows ure rights might be next!!