COLUMN LEFT/ PAUL HOFFMAN / MARK SILVERSTEIN : Safe Streets Don’t Require Lifting Rights : Hahn suit is a recipe for harassment of law-abiding Latino youths.

No one can disagree that gang violence is a plague in our community. But the absence of real solutions and the tendency to attack the symptom and not the disease creates pressure to get the job done at the expense of civil liberties.

City Attorney James K. Hahn has once again succumbed to these pressures. He filed a lawsuit asking the court to declare a constitutional “free-fire” zone in a large section of the San Fernando Valley bounded by Sepulveda Boulevard, Valerio Street, Van Nuys Boulevard and Chase Street.

Hahn seeks an order that would forbid each of 500 unnamed but alleged members of the Blythe Street gang from engaging in a wide variety of ordinarily lawful everyday activities that are protected by the Constitution. A hearing is now scheduled for March 25.

Unlike Hahn, we do not believe that suspending constitutional rights is necessary to deal with the gang’s criminal activities. Murder, mayhem, drug dealing, assault, intimidation, robbery and burglary all are prohibited by law. The Constitution does not protect criminal activity. Criminals should be arrested, prosecuted and sentenced. There is no need to choose between safe streets and the Constitution.

The order Hahn seeks tramples unjustifiably on fundamental constitutional rights of association, privacy and expression. It forbids lifelong friends, even brothers in the same family, from associating with one another. It bans certain clothes and certain jewelry. It bars 500 yet-to-be-named individuals from discussing or referring to the Blythe Street gang in any way, and forbids talk about any subject at all while riding in cars.

The proposed order forbids each of the 500 people from waiting for a bus or otherwise staying in any public place longer than five minutes. Under the order, parents could not take their children to stores, restaurants, hospitals or churches after 8 p.m. Some individuals would be banished from the neighborhood entirely, forbidden even to stay overnight with relatives.

The proposed order would forbid 500 alleged gang members from engaging in the most ordinary lawful conduct on their own property and in their own homes. Children could not climb trees or fences. Parents could not patch the family’s roof. Fixing bicycles on the front steps would be banned. Shaving with razor blades would be prohibited. Baseball bats, flashlights, even screwdrivers would become contraband.

Under the proposed order, 500 unnamed individuals would be required to carry special papers to prove that their everyday activities are lawful. They would need written permission to visit a neighbor’s house, written authorization to change a tire and valid proof of purchase for every auto part they possess. After 8 p.m., teens under 18 would be confined to their homes without special written documentation, and adults without proof of residence would be banned entirely from the neighborhood.

Because Hahn’s lawsuit does not identify the 500 alleged gang members, police will inevitably attempt to apply the court’s order to any Latino youths they believe to be members of the gang. There is no surer recipe for the harassment of many law-abiding Latino youths. After its independent investigation of the Los Angeles Police Department, the Christopher Commission’s report was filled with examples of the destructive effects of such harassment on police-community relations.

Hahn’s suit is like a rerun of an unsuccessful film. He filed and lost essentially the same suit against the Playboy Gangster Crips in 1987. The judge at that time agreed with the American Civil Liberties Union’s arguments, finding that Hahn’s lawsuit was “far, far overreaching.”

Once again, Hahn is overreaching the boundaries of the law. If he is attempting to wage war against crime at the expense of civil liberties, then the result must be the same. The United States is not a police state. The judge must deny Hahn the power to prosecute suspected gang members for ordinary, everyday noncriminal activities that are protected by the Constitution. City officials can maintain safe streets and safe neighborhoods without asking for a wholesale suspension of civil liberties.