X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 19 / 43

106 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

19 / 43

III

Public Nuisance

Defendants contend plaintiff failed to demonstrate the activities of alleged gang members were anything other than isolated instances of bad conduct amounting to a public nuisance.  They argue plaintiff relied on the criminal records of the 23 named defendants and descriptions of other crimes allegedly committed by gang members, but most of those crimes were committed years ago and some were relatively minor.  Defendants assert only 17 of the crimes occurred in 2006 or 2007.  Defendants further assert only six of the described crimes involved a gang-related conviction.  Defendants also argue there was no evidence of actual sightings of numerous gang members together in public places within the Safety Zone.  Finally, defendants argue there was no evidence the level of criminal conduct was any greater in the Safety Zone than elsewhere in West Sacramento or was greater than that in a comparably sized city.  

Defendants are mistaken that plaintiff relied solely on crimes committed by members of the Broderick Boys in the Safety Zone.  As mentioned earlier, the court in Englebrecht explained that, in the context of a gang injunction, it is not necessary to prove the commission of criminal acts.  Rather, it must be shown gang members “participate[] in or act[] in concert with an ongoing organization, association or group of three or more persons, whether formal or informal, having as one of its

19

Document info
Document views106
Page views106
Page last viewedSat Dec 10 03:58:00 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments