X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 30 / 43

155 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

30 / 43

Cal.App.4th at p. 1243, fn. 2.)  The Court of Appeal found this provision did not unnecessarily impinge upon familial association rights, explaining:  

“Collective activity by gang members is at the core of the nuisance the injunction justifiably attempts to abate.  While it may be that many gang members are also related by family, and while the injunction’s associational restrictions may affect, in the target area, contact between those family members, those facts are not determinative.  The injunction places no restrictions on contact between any individuals outside the target area.  In the target area the injunction merely requires gang members not to associate in public.  While the injunction may place some burden on family contact in the target area, it by no means has, in our view, a fundamental impact on general family association.

“Any attempt to limit the familial associational impact of the injunction would make it a less effective device for dealing with the collective nature of gang activity.  [The defendant] makes much of the point that gang and familial ties often overlap and gang membership is often multigenerational.  While such observation shows the possible unintended effect of gang association restrictions on families, it also indicates that any change in the injunction to allow greater association of family-related gang members would tend to limit the effectiveness of the association provisions.  Such a limitation on the injunction would in general also make it more difficult to enforce.”  (Englebrecht, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1263.)  

30

Document info
Document views155
Page views155
Page last viewedTue Jan 24 05:51:23 UTC 2017
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments