If It’s Not a Crime, It Must Be Legal : Targeted bans on gangs could work against law enforcement

Crime fighting in Los Angeles is hard enough for a strapped Police Department that lacks manpower and resources. It doesn’t help when ordinances are passed that fail to meet constitutional muster.

Take the attempt to ban street gangs from specific areas. The sensible way for authorities and elected officials to proceed in such a matter would be to try a small program on a limited basis. Step 2 would be to allow it to run up the judicial flagpole to see if it might be shot down.

That sounds like an awfully slow way to proceed, but it’s necessary when the authorities are promoting a law that might push the constitutional envelope. Better to go slowly at the outset than to see your law declared unconstitutional and have convictions overturned. If this happens, all of the resources poured into enforcement and prosecution end up amounting to so much wasted effort.

There has been a spate of such “ban” ordinances and lower court orders in recent years. One was enacted in the city of San Fernando, where during certain hours police were allowed to enforce a ban on gang presence in Las Palmas Park. The area involved was quite small and so was the size of the gang. The ban did not attempt to do much more than reclaim a small area for law-abiding residents.

We cautiously endorsed the ban because it had such a small fingerprint, but we also pointed out that the ordinance expired before it received a strong constitutional challenge.

In 1993, we said that the Los Angeles city attorney’s office was right to test the constitutional waters by trying a similar gang ban in the Blythe Street area of Panorama City, said to be the San Fernando Valley’s most crime-ridden neighborhood.

But in two editorials later that year, entitled “Gang Bans--Be Careful How You Do It” and “Ban on Blythe Street Gangs May Go Too Far,” we expressed obvious concerns. The 22-point court order gained by the Los Angeles city attorney’s office for Blythe Street, for example, barred gang members from engaging in otherwise legal activities.

Among other things, gang members could not stand on rooftops, possess pagers or cellular phones. They could not carry crowbars, spray paint cans or gang logo belt buckles. All this essentially bypassed a big step in the normal investigation/arrest process. One no longer had to be caught in the act of committing a crime to be arrested.

Soon, convicted prostitutes were also targeted. They were told that they would be arrested, in certain areas and at certain times, if they were caught engaging any motorist in conversation, accepted a ride from a motorist, or were just sitting in a car with a motorist.

Well, the “spirited court challenge that will inevitably arise,” as we said in the summer of 1993, is here.

San Jose’s gang abatement law, in its Rocksprings and Appian Way communities, is similar to the Blythe Street and prostitution bans. Now it has been emasculated by California’s 6th District Court of Appeal.

The court ruled that San Jose can restrict the obvious: actual criminal activity. But it ruled “constitutionally impermissible” any arrest based on the carrying of screwdrivers, tire irons, spray paint cans and even “slim jims” (which have no use other than opening locked car doors).

The ruling said gang members cannot be prevented from talking to motorists, gathering in public with other gang members, wearing gang clothing, acting as lookouts, using pagers, or using gang lingo and gestures to communicate.

A higher court could reverse it, but this precedent-setting Court of Appeal ruling is now the standard by which all such laws must be judged. It places prior convictions in jeopardy, and it should put current enforcement attempts on hold. These laws go too far. Now, it’s time to determine how far wrong they have gone.