Are cops breaking the law in order to break gangs’ hold on urban America? Law enforcement agencies nationwide have enacted a radical measure to curtail mounting gang violence that some say comes perilously close to infringing on civil liberties. In some instances, it actually does violate the U.S. Constitution, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) surmises. In response to an alarming rise in illegal activities associated with gangs, municipalities across the country have secured injunctions that prohibit identified gang members from talking to one another or even standing next to each other in a public place, USA Today reports. The newspaper said that more than a dozen such “restraining orders” have been filed since March in the state of California alone. Other civil injunctions have already been filed in the states of Florida, Massachusetts as well as municipalities in Texas, Illinois and Minnesota. The injunctions are civil suits, the newspaper states that enable cities to seek a court order declaring gang’s public behavior a nuisance in order to petition for limitations of their activities. Such an injunction does the following: establishes curfews; outlaws members from wearing gang apparel; prevents the flashing of gang signs in public places; and prevents public meetings in order to plan illicit activities by gang members. After experiencing lows in violent crime in the 1990’s, complaints have sprouted from urban city halls as gang complaints have increased 26 percent between 2002 and 2007, while gang arrests have risen 18 percent in the same time period, according to FBI statistics. Injunctions are nothing new to California. Los Angeles, for example, has had injunctions against their notorious gangs since the 1980’s and now boasts 40 injunctions that cover over 60 gangs, says Bruce Riordan, director of gang operations for the L.A. City Attorney’s office. The ACLU vehemently opposes such injunctions, claiming the measures blatantly violate civil rights and run contrary to the U.S. Constitutional rights. “It criminalizes ordinary daily activity. It places a huge burden on the basic freedom to live and engage in ordinary life,” says ACLU staff attorney Peter Bibring. Proponents of the measure, however, point to statistics to corroborate their claims that injunctions greatly impede gang criminality and reduce crime. Used in conjunction with enforcement and prevention, crime has lowered 25 to 33 percent, Riordan asserts. Some states are hesitant to enact civil injunctions, saying that accosting individuals for something they might do is the first step down a dangerously slippery slope. –
