X hits on this document

Word document

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION - page 40 / 43

83 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

40 / 43

entertainment activities is not rationally related to the alleged nuisance.  In other words, defendants argue, the exception does not go far enough.  But defendants provide no basis for the underlying premise of their argument--that the provision must contain an exception for all possible meetings and scheduled entertainment activities in order not to be overbroad.  The fact that the injunction contains some exceptions does not mean it must contain others.  

Under the circumstances presented, the curfew provision, which applies only to public property, public places, private establishments open to the public, or vacant lots within the Safety Zone, with certain limited exceptions, does not sweep too broadly or invade protected freedoms of defendants and other active gang members.  

X

Alcohol Provision

Paragraph (1)(f) of the preliminary injunction prohibits, “[a]nywhere in public view or anyplace accessible to the public, (1) possessing an open container of an alcoholic beverage, (2) knowingly remaining in the presence of anyone possessing an open container of an alcoholic beverage, or (3) knowingly remaining in the presence of an open container of an alcoholic beverage.”  Defendants contend this provision is unlawful because there is no evidence Broderick Boys gang members abuse alcohol or that alcohol plays any part in the alleged nuisance.  Defendants further contend the provision is unconstitutionally vague, as it

40

Document info
Document views83
Page views83
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 06:32:18 UTC 2016
Pages43
Paragraphs202
Words10151

Comments