Court Upholds Injunction Against Gangs

Upholding an increasingly popular weapon against street gang activity in California, the Supreme Court on Friday let stand a judge’s order that makes it a crime for any one of 38 young Latinos to be seen together on certain streets in San Jose.

California law enforcement officials hailed the high court’s action as a victory in their efforts to bring peace and security to crime-ridden neighborhoods by enforcing such gang-abatement methods. However, opinions were mixed about whether the action would spur a rash of similar legal maneuvers by other communities to win injunctions against suspected gang members.

The California Supreme Court had upheld the San Jose injunction on a 4-3 vote in January. In an appeal, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union in San Francisco said these sweeping decrees were spreading throughout the state, but should not go unchecked.

The Constitution does not allow people to be singled out and threatened with jail terms for otherwise innocent behavior, such as wearing certain colors or walking on a public street, the ACLU lawyers argued.

San Jose prosecutors, however, maintained that the gang members had proved to be a “public nuisance” and deserved to be singled out. The Supreme Court sided with the city, rejecting the appeal without comment.

The court’s action was lauded by Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti, who said the injunctions have been effective “in really giving back to the law-abiding citizens . . . the hope and gift of a viable community, a peace-loving community.”

San Jose City Atty. Joan Gallo was equally pleased, saying Friday’s action affirmed the right of neighborhoods to protect themselves against the violent onslaught of street gangs.

“This enables cities in California to take a very effective action when a gang holds a neighborhood hostage,” Gallo said.

Use of so-called public nuisance laws have been growing in popularity as a way to smother gang activity, with nearly a dozen California communities--including Los Angeles, Long Beach, Pasadena, Inglewood and Norwalk--having won injunctions since the early 1990s.

John Crew, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court chose not to resolve what he called “fundamental constitutional questions” raised by the injunctions. But he noted that the court’s action does not establish any legal precedent and leaves open the possibility of future challenges.

“Depending on how far communities chose to go with this, my guess is that this area will be the subject of litigation for many years to come,” Crew said.

Los Angeles Assistant City Atty. Martin Vranicar Jr., who supervises the office’s gang unit, said the Supreme Court made a “good decision,” but added that the use of injunctions should not be seen as a cure-all for community woes. The city is currently seeking an injunction against the 18th Street gang, whose members are accused of terrorizing a southwest Los Angeles neighborhood.

“I’m not here to say this is a tool for all gangs in all places,” he said. “And we don’t see it as appropriate in every situation. It’s very labor-intensive, it’s strict. Obviously it involves impinging on--or at least involves issues regarding--constitutional rights, and we are conscious of that.”

In a separate case, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a federal court ruling that could shut down many of the gambling casinos on Indian reservations in California.

Siding with Gov. Pete Wilson, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the tribes are entitled under federal law to offer only the types of gaming permitted by the state. This means lotteries and horse racing, but not slot machines and high-stakes casino gambling, Wilson said.

Lawyers for the Sycuan Band of Mission Indians in San Diego County had urged the high court to review that ruling, saying it has “enormous significance” for the fate of tribal gaming.

But the Justice Department told the court that the 9th Circuit ruling was correct. States need not allow on the reservations gaming that it “completely prohibits” by law, and therefore California need not permit “banked or percentage card gaming” or “electronic gaming machines,” the department said.

On Friday, the justices rejected the appeal in Sycuan Band vs. Wilson.

“This is a major decision on the scope of gaming,” said Tom Gede, a deputy state attorney general in Sacramento. “I would think the U.S. attorneys would be emboldened to proceed further” to halt casino-type gaming, he said.

But lawyers for other tribes say the matter is far from resolved.

Later this year, a U.S. district judge in Sacramento is set to hold a trial on the question of whether the popular and lucrative slot machines operated by the tribes are legal under California law.

The high court’s action in the gang case, like that in the Indian gaming dispute, is not a final or binding national ruling.

In both instances, however, the court left in place lower court rulings that are expected to have real significance in California.

The California Supreme Court in its January ruling gave wide latitude to prosecutors and judges to combat gang activity through injunctions.

Justice Janice Rogers Brown said gangs had turned a four-block neighborhood in San Jose into “occupied territory.” In such situations, judges are justified in taking strong action to squelch a “public nuisance,” she said. Violating an injunction is punishable by up to five days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

The high court turned down the appeal in Gonzalez vs. Gallo.

In still a third case from California, the justices dismissed an appeal from a Chico landlord who is a devout Christian and refuses to rent rooms to unmarried couples.

State law forbids housing discrimination based on marital status.

Times staff writers David Savage reported from Washington and Carla Rivera from Los Angeles. Times staff writers Greg Krikorian and Stephanie Simon in Los Angeles also contributed to this story.