The road toward a trial on the city’s proposed gang injunction is still backed up like Highway 101 at rush hour as the civil court awaits the juvenile court’s review of voluminous juvenile records before it can proceed.
City attorney Tom Shapiro and Deputy District Attorney Michael Carrozzo told Judge Colleen Sterne they were waiting for juvenile court Judge Thomas Adams to review materials related to their request to release the juvenile information of people named in the city’s proposed gang injunction. In total, they said, were roughly 9,000 pages of police reports and other material for Adams to review. They gave a quick update to the judge Monday morning in superior court.
The city’s controversial plan — which names 30 people in the legal filing, along with the Eastside and Westside gangs — would prohibit gang members from wearing certain types of clothing and from associating with other gang members in proposed “safe zones” around the city. They wouldn’t be allowed to have weapons, use drugs or alcohol, or recruit for their gang in these zones. These 30 people have been labeled by police as the city’s “baddest of the bad.”
In backing its claim for the need for a gang injunction — which was first introduced in March 2011 — the city included juvenile information normally held under seal in its court filings. Sterne determined the inclusion of the information was not allowed to be released without the permission of the juvenile court. So in October, the DA’s office filed petitions on all 27 gang injunction defendants with juvenile records, along with briefs substantiating their position.
The two sides are now awaiting hearings in juvenile court regarding the 27 defendants. (Three of the people named in the injunction do not have juvenile records, so no petition was made in those cases.)
The DA will be back in juvenile court on February 26 and March 19, where they hope the judge will make a determination on whether individual hearings need to be held, Carrozzo told Sterne Monday morning.
The city initially requested a temporary injunction while the permanent injunction made its way through the court proceedings, but the judge decided that since much of the evidence would be the same they should move forward toward a trial on the permanent injunction. The juvenile court issue, however, has bogged things down.