Enjoining the Constitution: The Use of Public Nuisance Abatement Injunctions against Urban Street Gangs

Abstract

Gang-related crime has increasingly become a focal point of criminal law enforcement, and among the new prosecutorial efforts the most praised is the anti-gang injunction. California state courts are leading the way in this trend, using public nuisance laws to enjoin gang members from a range of activities within specified city zones. The most authoritative decision on anti-gang injunctions is the California Supreme Court's 1997 holding in People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, which upheld their constitutionality. In this note, Matthew Mickle Werdegar critiques California's model and argues that the anti-gang injunction tool is not only flawed and ineffective, but also unconstitutional. Werdegar argues that the Acuna court should have found that anti-gang injunctions are unconstitutionally vague, and that enforcing them through criminal penalties equates to guilt by association. In addition, Werdegar argues for a due process right to legal representation for named individuals at the entry of the civil injunction. Werdegar concludes that only the abandonment of antigang injunctions can cure the constitutional defects, prevent discriminatory enforcement, and provide better solutions to gang-related crime.