X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 21 / 43

113 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

21 / 43

prosecute an individual gang member for criminal vandalism, it is not required in order to use the graffiti as a basis for a gang injunction.  It may reasonably be assumed such graffiti was the work product of some member of the gang, even if that member cannot be identified.  It is the collective action of the gang, not that of any individual member, that determines whether a public nuisance exists.  

As to defendants’ argument that there was no evidence of actual sightings of numerous gang members patrolling the Safety Zone together, we need look no further than the declaration of Investigator Villanueva.  As described above, Villanueva indicated Broderick Boys members typically patrol areas within the Safety Zone in small groups, because a “guy on the corner isn’t going to get the message of fear and intimidation across to the community and to rival gangs.”  Unless we are to conclude Investigator Villanueva simply made this up, it is reasonable to assume he observed this activity within the Safety Zone or it was reported to him by others.  As noted earlier, “we interpret the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and indulge in all reasonable inferences in support of the trial court’s order.”  (Shoemaker v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 625.)  

As to the relative dearth of recent criminal offenses presented in support of the injunction, it must not be overlooked that during all of 2006 and much of 2007 an injunction was in place restricting the activities of the Broderick Boys in the Safety Zone.  Also, Investigator

21

Document info
Document views113
Page views113
Page last viewedSun Dec 11 00:49:47 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments