In a matter of weeks, the City of Santa Barbara is expected to file civil injunctions against 25 to 30 known adult gang members, which will bar them from associating with fellow gang members and setting foot in certain parts of town, as part of the city’s escalating enforcement effort in response to gang violence. This action marks a dramatic shift in city policy regarding gang injunctions, about which Police Chief Cam Sanchez has expressed significant reluctance and skepticism in the past. Even though the aggregate number of gang-related violent crimes has dropped notably in the last year — 14 percent — public anger and impatience with gang violence has decidedly increased. Two individuals with no gang affiliation were killed by gang members in the past year, one at Hendry’s Beach and another while walking home from work at a Milpas Street liquor store. The owner of a Chinese restaurant on Milpas Street was beaten on two occasions by gang members. And, most recently, a 47-year-old Eastside resident — described by police as “an innocent victim” — was stabbed multiple times last week by members of a Santa Barbara gang.
Paul Wellman (file)
ARSENAL ADDITION: After more than a year of research and analysis, Santa Barbara city police have embraced the controversial gang injunction as a way to combat gang violence. “It’s not a magic bullet. It will not make gangs disappear,” cautioned Assistant Police Chief Frank Mannix. “But it will give us more leverage.”
Assistant Police Chief Frank Mannix said the department began looking seriously at a gang injunction after Eastside gang members surrounded the Franklin Clinic a couple of years ago — forcing clinic employees to shut down and lock the doors — because they believed someone associated with a Westside gang was inside. Santa Barbara cops spoke with the Lompoc police officer who instigated that community’s gang injunction and heard positive, if decidedly anecdotal, reports. “We were told that after the injunction, gang members there were a lot less brazen,” Mannix recalled. “When you have brazen gang members, it tends to precipitate violence.” Likewise, Mannix said, the former chief of Oxnard’s police department said the injunction there proved effective. Santa Barbara, Mannix acknowledged, does not have anything close to Oxnard’s gang problems. “Compared to other communities, Santa Barbara has an enviable gang problem,” Mannix said. “But it’s a recurring problem.”
An injunction, he said, “is not a magic bullet. It won’t make the problem go away.” It will, he said, give law enforcement additional leverage in dealing with individual gang members. Mannix said many key details have yet to be worked out and that no date has been set for the first filing. But the only question around City Hall is when it happens — estimates range from two to four weeks — and under what conditions. No one interviewed for this story suggested it might not occur.
According to City Attorney Steve Wiley, an injunction will be filed against 25 to 30 of the city’s most serious gang offenders. It will not target gang members in general, he said, or people who dress a certain way. To qualify, Wiley said those targeted by the injunction have to have been convicted of crimes committed in furtherance of a street gang, known as “gang-related enhancements.” Or they must admit, he said, to being gang members. Those named will have an opportunity to defend themselves before a judge. But if the judge upholds the injunction, they will be barred from associating with other gang members. They will not be allowed to go to certain stores, parks, and areas in the city where gang violence tends to occur. While many specifics remain unresolved, Wiley did say that the injunction will not seek to impose curfew rules on those named. Those found in violation of the injunction, he said, would risk being found in criminal contempt of court, an offense that could land them in jail.
“A gang member is whoever the police say is a gang member,” she said. “Their burden of proof has been refined over the years,” she said, “but since no one really challenges these things, it’s a moot point.”
Cam Sanchez has been under significant pressure to embrace the gang injunction for several years. He’s taken considerable heat over his reluctance to do so. In 2007, he stated, “There are instances where a gang injunction does work, but in most cases it doesn’t.” Last year, he acknowledged his stance was shifting, explaining he’d been blistered by many in the Latino community for being too soft on gangs. But gang injunctions have been controversial from their inception. Civil libertarians object that injunctions effectively criminalize noncriminal behavior. “If someone commits a crime, fine, lock them up,” said Candace Carroll of the San Diego ACLU. “But to arrest someone for walking down the street with the wrong person?” (Wiley said the city’s injunction is modeled after one deployed in San Diego. Carroll litigated a major injunction case 10 years ago.) Because the gang injunction is a matter of civil law — as opposed to criminal — Candace pointed out, those filed against have no right to legal counsel. Many of the people named cannot afford a private attorney, she said, so most have no defense at all. She represented a client who she insisted had not been an active gang member in 10 years. “A gang member is whoever the police say is a gang member,” she said. “Their burden of proof has been refined over the years,” she said, “but since no one really challenges these things, it’s a moot point.” Although the injunction is a civil matter, failure to comply carries with it criminal penalties.
She acknowledged that neighborhoods where gang injunctions are deployed often experience a reduction in gang behavior. But that doesn’t mean it stops. “They just move somewhere else,” she said.
Gang injunctions can tax the resources of law enforcement agencies. Mannix estimated 2,000 hours have been spent working to prepare the research and analysis to support the city’s injunction. Some in law enforcement suggest those resources could be more effectively spent on more traditional anti-gang efforts. They point out that most serious offenders already have probation conditions that bar them from engaging in many of the behaviors covered in an injunction. Mannix countered that terms and conditions have time limits that injunctions do not. He said an injunction will prove far more effective than probation terms and conditions when dealing with a cluster of gang members on a street corner displaying a “what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it? attitude.”
One former gang member now working as a gang-intervention counselor expressed concern that an injunction would promote racial profiling. He expressed skepticism about claims made by proponents of the gang injunction that only “the baddest of the bad” would be targeted. They said the same thing in 1993 and 1994, he claimed, when the Legislature approved special gang-enhanced sentences. “Now they add enhancements any chance they get,” he said.
Dr. Gus Frias, recently hired to coordinate the many gang intervention and prevention programs on the South Coast, said he has not been notified about the gang injunction yet. He said injunctions can be useful but cautioned that gang-suppression efforts need to be balanced with intervention and education. As a practical matter, defense attorney Steve Balash — who represents many gang members — wondered how a gang injunction could work in a small town like Santa Barbara. “Some of the people I represent come from families that have been involved in gangs going back three generations. How does the injunction work when you’re in a gang, your brother’s in a gang, and your cousins are in a gang? Where can you go? Can you be with your family?” he asked. “I think it’s going to be very difficult to enforce.”
Mannix said many questions still need to be resolved before the first injunctions can be filed. City Hall will do its best to ensure the injunctions pass constitutional muster. As for ethnic profiling, he said gang violence falls disproportionately on poorer, Latino neighborhoods that need relief. “It’s criminal profiling, not racial profiling,” he said. In the final analysis, he said, these issues will be left up to a judge to decide.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Finally!!! A gang injunction should have been implemented several years ago, but wasn't because of stupid opposition from Sanchez and the liberals on City Council. They now have blood on their hands from the people murdered by gangs in that time. Sanchez needs to go so we can get a competent leader of the police department to replace him.
zorro (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
about time. maybe mannix should be the police chief. if crime families go back 3 generations, and they can't hang out together, no tears from me.
you notice, no comment from sanchez. ah, its not a tv interview, thats why.
lawdy (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The one common denominator of gang activity ,,,is the one no one will talk about. La M, etc. ,,,it's only going to get worse!!!!
oldtimer (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
things are going to get worse for the city...... mock my words
killuminati (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's see,,, the Gangs use Guns, Knives, drugs, violence, to imprison neighborhoods,,,,,, Mr. Sanchez has injunctions to free them from crime... Perhaps some academic at UCSB could tell him the odds of success with this approach. How about some Rico statutes being applied by the Federal government. Or perhaps Santa Barbara could change names with Oxnard,,,,cause with Sanchez in charge,, that's what Santa Barbara will become!!!!
oldtimer (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While the injunctions appear to be a fix, they largely appear to be unconstitutional. In the end its but a band aid for weekend educational systems and job opportunities. Under the description of gangmembers, the term should then also apply to Operation Rescue and Westboro "Baptist Church".
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Shame on Santa Barbara for violating these people's right to peaceably assemble! EZK is right, this is a Constitutional issue. Not only that, it is a privacy issue. What if I am doing business with one of these individuals, can the cops question me and search me to insure that I'm not someone that person isn't allowed to associate with?
I guess the RINOs in this town (Republicans In Name Only) don't give a crap about the Constitution, what a farce.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Too many ways to skin a cat, but we choose the most difficult way instead. If the police and probation department enforced the laws we have now, we would not need to violate or question our constitutional rights to bust a couple of half-wit criminals.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
March 3, 2011 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So after those 25 hard-core gangbangers are "moved along" to Upper State Street or Carpinteria, then what?
The Machine, and number of City employees involved, will need to be fed by adding more kids to the list and ever broadening
Maybe instead those Courts and Probation personnel should develop better Probation terms and conditions?
Real Leadership by the City would focus on solutions and not bright, shiny distractions of the month. If people are going ape"s--t" about how the dreaded ACLU gets involved in defending against violations of civil rights of homeless people on the streets, just wait for the civil rights blowback from a hasty gang injunction.
I suggest that plenty of CRIMINAL legal remedies are available for such criminals. Besides, a gang injunction is great for the tourism industry, right?
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
March 3, 2011 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some years ago in Florida, felons were allowed to vote in violation of then state law. It turned out that over 75% of said felons voted Democrat. The local gangs are an important constituency for Progressive Democrats. Whenever the bourgeois gets upset about open borders, racial preferences and bilingual education, progressives can implicitly threaten them with violence from their gangster shock troops.
Again, I'll say that the silence from progressives like Pritchett about the hate-crime murder of immigrant George Ied speaks volumes about the true agenda of the Santa Barbara racialist left.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 6:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Haven't other areas instituted gang injunctions? Were they effective? Were they found to be unconstitutional or illegal? Has anything else worked around here?
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad I don't live in fear like the pro-injunctionists on this thread.
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gee, do we really need a diving tat to profile who a gangbanger is? Even the most unsophisticated citizen can deduce who is with about a 95% accuracy rate.
Evolution has bestowed most of us with an innate ability to sense predators. Sometimes it works too well and for others, not well enough.
Tats, hats, & gats. Pretty good indicators. You brainiacs know what I mean. Taken collectively (or individually), we recognize the thousand millimeter stare these punks exude and are fairly adept at discerning intention and connection.
Take a walk on the West Side. Stand at, say, the corner of Micheltorena & San Andreas. Have a handy notepad with you and try to blend in with your surroundings so as not to attract unwarranted attention. Now start making little marks every time a suspected gangbanger walks by. In no time flat your fingers will start to cramp as your little notepad fills up with marks at a gingerly rate. See how easy that was?
It never ceases to astound me when grandma and Aunt Tilly get the turd degree at the airport security counter when they are clearly no more a terrorist than the Hamburger Help glove is.
Profiling is the working Magic 8-Ball for common sense. All you gotta do is use it, and in the case of determining who is and isn't a punk beans-fer-brains gangbanger, the extensive criminal record usually is a good indicator and another grand clue. (And before you Grand Inquisitors start raising your default racist flags, know that I have European Latin blood coursing through my rubbery veintubes).
File the injunctions, put these punk rampants on notice, and start the happy conga line to the jail cell.
Draxor (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How is it racial profiling if a majority of gang members happen to be Mexican, black, oriental or people of another race? If police have information about a Mexican involved in gang activity does it make sense for them to chase down a white boy? Have these little immature boys give up the names of white, Indian or other race of gang member(s) and the police will likely pursue those people. Quit whining about profiling and put the responsibility for properly training these "wanna-be's," whatever their race, where it belongs, with the Mothers & Fathers that brought them into the world. There's always the military if these boys and girls would like to defend something other than an ignorant sounding gang name. But, how many of these brave little "wanna-be gang bangers" have the cajones to go toe-to-toe against a real enemy, an enemy of this great country of ours. It's time to make individuals responsible for the activities involved in their lives, whatever they choose to do.
whatsinsb (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 10:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mannix and Sanchez are liquid from the same D-bag! Their collective incompetence, along with a City Council who has gobbled up their double speak for all these years, has brought us to this point.
SBLover35 (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 12:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just luv my paranoid, imaginative, history-revised fan mail today.
Would it be better of said felons voted for Republicans?
And just how would anyone know... by believing an exit poll from a felon or said felon?
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
March 4, 2011 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
blah blah blah blah...... i have the solution for the gangs in Santa Barbara... but i will need to get pay before i tell whats my plan.
killuminati (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People who make the most noise about not trusting the government tell us we should trust the government to decide what street we can walk down or who we can talk with, which shows that they have no principles, only fears.
pk (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
“A gang member is whoever the police say is a gang member,” -Candace Carroll-
With all the gang members (whatever defines one as a gang member) that are in S.B., imagine the resources it will take to enforce a law that makes it illegal to associate with other gang members.
There are of course constitutional issues.
Encouraging more cheap immigrant labor to move into already overcrowded neighborhoods, taking away the right to arm and defend oneself, and making it a crime to merely associate with someone is not going to solve this, it will only make it worse.
Too many emotions and vested political interests preclude common sense on this issue.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Draxor: I liked your post but having "Latin" blood (Spanish blood?) doensn't make your comments any more or less valid.
EZK: While we are on the same side of the injunction issue, your comment about not living in fear means either that A: you don't live in a neighborhood where gang violence is a threat to you or your loved ones; or B: you don't have the survival instincts of most people.
If I had to go to a medical clinic to seek help running a fever and feeling weak and sick, and then saw the place surrounded by thugs bent on doing harm, I'd have plenty of fear.
I know this is a gross generalization but there is a saying that goes something like "The difference between a liberal and a conservative is that a liberal has never been mugged". If you have been mugged, default back to my "B" scenario.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To clarify my statement, while I don't live in a neighborhood experiencing gang violence I have experienced gang violence, twice from white supremacist gangs (and I am white!). My comment merely was to point out that I don't believe in bogeymen and I certainly don't think some localized version of the Patriot Act is going to protect me or anyone.
Part of the modus operandi of any gang, their means of control is fear. I refuse to cede that control to them. The scenario you paint, if that were to be a real life one certainly should be a cause for law enforcement intervention, ect; but you of course do state its a fictional one..
Tats and hats are mainstream fashion amongst young people btw Draxor; and aren't Gatling Guns now basically antiques?
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 4, 2011 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EZK the scenario he painted of the medical clinic was a real incident which happened in town I think last year although the article says a couple of years ago, (2nd graph) there was a police response.
I don't know if this is a solution or not, a little leery of what seems to be a infringement of civil liberties but also realize something must be done. I wonder though if the 2000 hours of work so far on this was done by sworn officers? If that was the case wouldn't it have been more effective to just have them in the impacted areas.
pointssouth (anonymous profile)
March 5, 2011 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry I spaced on that section of the article. Don't RICO statutes cover this sorta thing?
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 5, 2011 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Most of the " gangs" we are talking about could go by this definition,,,, a group people who commit criminal acts and adhere to the slogan " when you mess with one bean ,,,you get the whole burrito"
oldtimer (anonymous profile)
March 5, 2011 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Then there's the political gangs, the gangs in the financial industry...
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 6, 2011 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting range of viewpoints. Clearly we should allow armed bands of known thugs the right of free assembly. Just allow me to carry concealed so I can protect myself.
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 7, 2011 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's face it folks. The VAST majority of violent crime, graffiti, destruction of neighborhoods and cost to the tax payer are from one major group..............GANGS. Mostly Hispanic followed by Black gangs. Look at LA, Compton, Inglewood, Santa Ana, Oakland, Santa Maria......to name a few. They are ruining our society and turning our schools, streets, hospitals and neighborhoods into 3rd. world countries.
Constitutional Rights??!! What about our RIGHTS not to be mugged, scared, stabbed, shot, robbed, property defaced, schools ruined etc. etc.
Enough is enough.
SanityNow (anonymous profile)
March 7, 2011 at 2:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SanityNow conveniently forgot white supremist gangs, and the gangs of real estate speculators driving up cost of living across the board.
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 7, 2011 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again, look at what we were doing differently before the gang problem got to this point.
Of course doing this would require the self-examination most people would be afraid to do, or at the least, won't do because they are too preoccupied in their day-to-day trivialities.
Far easier is it to say "Lock 'em all up" or "Spend more money for our at-risk youth".
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 7, 2011 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
True, billclausen, but what is your proposed solution?
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2011 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"SanityNow conveniently forgot white supremacist gangs, "
Except that white supremacist gangs have zero support from academia and our political elites. Furthermore, no one whines that we need to find the root causes of anger of white supremacists, nor do we need to "honor their culture". In contrast, their are numerous people like Gregory Boyle making endless excuses for the urban terrorism inflicted by Black and Latino gangs, even though the primary victims of such terrorism are Blacks and Latinos. In the extreme case, you have Congresswoman Maxine Water dancing the electric slide with the Crips and Bloods back in the 90s.
revisionist (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2011 at 7:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
White supremacist gangs??? Real Estate speculators? EZK!! What the F...are you talking about? I lived in LA for 10 yrs. 65,000 est. known gang members in LA. 9500 Cops to manage this mess. Over 100 sq. miles of LA are off limits to almost any sane person. The stats on who are committing the VAST % of crimes is undeniable. I think white gangs make up about 500 of the 65,000.
Also Bill C. Self Examination?? pre occupied with our day to day trivialities??? What like making a legal living, paying our taxes, caring for our families, keeping our homes and neighborhoods clean, going to school, staying out of trouble, making something of ourselves. Those trivialities??
It's not we. it's they. I wake up every day and go to work, pay my taxes, clean my house, walk my dog, and all the other things law biding civilized folks do.
Enough excuses for this behavior.
SanityNow (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2011 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
True, billclausen, but what is your proposed solution?
-JohnLocke -
March 8, 2011 at 7:49 a.m.
Stop voting for politicians who think of immigrants as cheap expendable labor, and who don't believe people should have the right to arm themselves.
"SanityNow conveniently forgot white supremist gangs, and the gangs of real estate speculators driving up cost of living across the board."
-EZK-
March 7, 2011 at 5:31 p.m.
White supremacist gangs are not exploding in growth the way the gangs discussed on this thread are growing nor do they have anywhere near the numbers. Talk to someone living on the Eastside or Westside and ask them which of these gangs is more of a threat to them. Also, white supremacist gangs are episodic, and not systemic.
I do however feel EZK's point about the ridiculous price of real estate is relevant. Everything...the cost of living, overcrowding, political correctness, immigration policy, racial attitudes, factors into the equation.
Also Bill C. Self Examination?? pre occupied with our day to day trivialities??? -SanityNow-
March 8, 2011 at 10:31 a.m.
Yes SanityNow. Look at what is headline news: Charlie Sheen, and the goings on of other Hollywood celebs. America has serious problems yet people keep re-electing the same politicians. What we are doing isn't working, we see that, but no changes are made.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2011 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Academia does NOT support gang culture! Anti-intellectualism will not solve the problem, only increase it "revisionist"!. Its the lack of intellectual nurture, growth and activity that creates gang culture and also permeates it!
EZK (anonymous profile)
March 8, 2011 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
@revisionist "Except that white supremacist gangs have zero support from academia and our political elites."
Right. I'll remember that the next time some southern politician tries to throw the Confederate flag on a capital building. Or when the Tea Party white-washes (quite literally) the secession of the south as just some poor old farmers standing up for their individual rights as anything and everything but slave owners. Or when a Republican leader in the Senate talks about how much better things would be if we had elected a pro-segregationist candidate in the1940's.
EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
March 11, 2011 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)