Branded

GANG INJUNCTIONS, which prohibit suspected members from activities such as congregating, loitering and wearing certain clothes, have proved to be useful tools for suppressing gang activity. Useful, yet problematic.

Injunctions came into vogue in 1993, when then-City Atty. James K. Hahn issued one against the Blythe Street gang in Van Nuys. Since then, the city has obtained injunctions covering 36 gangs and an estimated 11,000 people. Now the region’s law enforcement agencies are ratcheting up injunctions to combat a spike in gang crime. Some violators now face not only jail time but deportation.

City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo last week announced a policy of giving immigration officials the names of those convicted of violating gang injunctions. County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley is weighing a plan to forward the names of even suspected violators to the feds for possible deportation. These moves underline the importance of making sure injunctions are enforced fairly.

But can a system be fair if the accused can’t clear their names? For members, leaving a gang can be difficult if not impossible. But getting out from under a gang injunction may be just as hard. In fact, no one in Los Angeles has ever done it.

A few have been acquitted by juries of violating gang injunctions, but that doesn’t mean their names come off a list. The conviction rate for injunction violators is high -- 90% to 94% from July 2001 to December 2006, with 1,430 total convictions, according to the city attorney.

Delgadillo plans to release new gang injunction guidelines next week, with a process for removal from the rolls. That years have passed with no such procedure is an injustice. But the particulars in this case remain to be seen.

A related problem is not how hard it is to get off a gang list, but the ease with which people can be added to it. University students have found themselves on the list, as have middle-class parents who left gang life long ago, found employment and purchased homes. Injunctions rely, in part, on the state’s Cal/Gang database, a computerized list of people considered to be gang members based on several factors, including tattoos, style of dress, associations and identification by informants. The burden of proof, when it comes to clearing one’s name, lies with the suspected gang member, not the city.

That is not likely to change, but it would be fair for residents who are placed on the list to have a way of finding out why. With that information, they could at least make a case for innocence.

Civil rights advocates have challenged the validity of injunctions, mostly without success. Although lower courts have held that forbidding gang members from associating violates their 1st Amendment rights, the state Supreme Court has upheld injunctions on the grounds that gang activity is a public nuisance. The state Supreme Court is right -- but that doesn’t mean gang injunctions shouldn’t be as fair as possible.