X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 27 / 43

90 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

27 / 43

be much more specific.  It is not likely criminal street gangs maintain rosters of their active members.  Such membership must be determined from the individual’s actions.  In Englebrecht, the court indicated that “for the purposes of a gang injunction an active gang member is a person who participates in or acts in concert with” the gang, so long as such participation or acting in concert is “more than nominal, passive, inactive or purely technical.”  (Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1261.)  The court further indicated that factors nearly identical to those mentioned in the definition at issue here “may provide a useful guide for determining if a defendant is a gang member but they do not ultimately define the concept of membership in the gang abatement injunction context.”  (Ibid.)  

The definition utilized here contains the same flexibility as that presented in Englebrecht.  The four factors--self-identification, gang tattoos, crimes committed with other gang members, and information from reliable informants--“may be used” to determine active gang membership but do not alone define the concept.  Participation of the alleged member “must be more than nominal, passive, inactive or purely technical.”  Other factors that may be considered are “[c]lothing, accessories, photographs and close association with known gang members.”  

“‘Two principles guide the evaluation of whether a law . . . is unconstitutionally vague.  First, “abstract legal commands must be applied in a specific context.  A contextual application of otherwise unqualified legal language may supply the clue to a law’s meaning, giving facially standardless

27

Document info
Document views90
Page views90
Page last viewedWed Dec 07 11:00:30 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments