County attorney expands ban on gangs in northeast Houston

I'm wondering if anyone has an explanation as to why an injunction like this is constitutional. I'm sure they're bad people and all, but it seems like an infringement on their liberty without achieving a conviction.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...-gangs-in-northeast-5556179.php#photo-6185430

[rquoter]A Houston judge on Monday permanently banned 47 suspected gang members from a perennially troubled area of northeast Harris County.

The gang injunction, signed by state District Judge Alexandra Smoots-Hogan, expands the area affected by the area's first gang injunction, which was signed in 2010 to clean up what was then the city's most dangerous apartment complex, Haverstock Hills.

The 2010 injunction banned 28 suspected gang members from entering the 700-unit complex, an elementary school and the surrounding stores and businesses, in the northwest corner of Aldine Bender and the Eastex Freeway.

Monday's order expands the area to include three other apartment complexes and two other schools. It also increases the number of alleged members who are prohibited in the area to 47.

"We're trying to take the good things that are happening at Haverstock and expand to other areas of what we now call the 'East Aldine Safety Zone,'" said First Assistant County Attorney Robert Soard.

To ban alleged gang members, lawyers with the Harris County Attorney's office have to identify each one and show a continuing pattern of illegal behavior. The named suspects are alleged members of two notorious gangs, the Bloods and the Crips.

Harris County Attorney Vince Ryan won a similar injunction last year against other members of the Crips and Bloods that banned them from the Brays Oaks Safety Zone in southwest Houston.

The injunction asserts that the defendants have been regularly engaging in gang activities, including weapons offenses, criminal trespass and drug possession. The injunction bans them from being physically present in the 'Safety Zone.'[/rquoter]

 

Google 'restraining order constitutionality' and you get a lot of right-wing stuff about protecting your freedom. So, I guess I'm not original. But, it seems to me like there is a qualitative difference between a restraining order to keep one individual away from another individual because of bad relations between them, and a mass ban on people to stay away from a geography because of their affiliations. The subjected group is bigger, the restraint is broader and imprecise, and the logic is a bit strained. This sort of ban can make their own homes or jobs (hypothetically) off-limits. And, I feel like the city is mostly taking advantage of the fact that the gang-bangers don't have good lawyers. On the one hand, they can just go do their gang stuff some place else, while on the other hand, to expand this injunction to cover the whole city makes the person's existence illegal -- at some point, the scale matters from a civil liberties perspective.

Anyway, I wish Aldine success in eliminating the bad elements. I just worry about their methods.

 

Not saying it's new, just that I'm uncomfortable with it, whether its Aldine or Chicago or LA. Here's some stuff from a random website:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Constitutionality+of+Anti-Gang+Laws

[rquoter]The national aversion to gangs has sparked debate over First Amendment rights of gang members versus citizens' safety at home and on the streets. Anti-gang injunctions and the enactment of anti-gang loitering ordinances are the two most prominent legal weapons currently employed against gangs. Critics of these efforts, most notably the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), contend that these initiatives violate the First Amendment's right of free association. Defenders of anti-gang initiatives reply that society's rights to peace and quiet and to be free from harm outweigh the gang members' First Amendment associational rights.

Critics reject the idea that public safety allows the government to tell citizens they may not associate with each other. As long as citizens are not committing a crime, the state cannot tell them not to stand on a street corner together or walk down the street. The Supreme Court has recognized that freedom of association is on par with Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

The Court has allowed municipalities to require permits for parades, sound trucks, and demonstrations, in the interest of public order. However, the courts have been careful not to abridge the right of unpopular assemblies or protests. In 1977, the largely Jewish suburb of Skokie, Illinois, enacted three ordinances designed to prevent a march through the city by the American Nazi Party. The ACLU sued the city, and a federal court ruled that Skokie had violated the First Amendment by denying the Nazis a permit to march (Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197 [7th Cir. 1978]).

Critics of anti-gang laws also argue that just because gang members are unpopular to a large segment of society does not give society the right to restrict their right to association. Why, for example, should the Ku Klux Klan be allowed to march through an African-American neighborhood while persons in that neighborhood cannot congregate on a playground to talk or play sports?

Critics believe there are better alternatives to controlling illegal gang activity than loitering laws and community injunctions. The ACLU contends that anti-gang injunctions do not work and may even make things worse. The resources of law enforcement are concentrated in one area, causing the shift of criminal activity into other neighborhoods. In addition, arresting a gang member for violating a loitering ordinance will not change the underlying dynamic of gang activity in urban areas. Critics argue that these anti-gang efforts are a cynical, political ploy that has more to do with creating a tough-on-crime appearance than with effective law enforcement.

As an alternative, critics would emphasize community policing, increased resources for law enforcement, and efforts to improve the economic status of urban areas. They note that crime prevention and effective enforcement of criminal laws will do more to make a community safe than telling a suspected gang member to leave a street corner. In time, they believe, both the public and law enforcement will realize that solid, everyday police work produces better results.

Defenders of anti-gang initiatives contend that although First Amendment rights should be protected as much as possible, no constitutional right is absolute. In the case of gangs, the violence and criminal activity in certain parts of urban areas have reached a stage where normal law enforcement techniques do not work. Although the ACLU may say that individual rights must be protected, such a claim rings hollow when a gang can take over a neighborhood through violence and intimidation and yet evade law enforcement. In a crisis situation, additional steps must be taken to restore public confidence in the police and local government.

Restricting gang activity is not unconstitutional, argue defenders of the laws, because the Supreme Court has made it clear that no group of persons has the right to associate for wholly illegal aims. Moreover, associations engaging in both legal and illegal activities may still be regulated to the extent they engage in illegal activities. Defenders emphasize that the mere existence of an association is not sufficient to bring all that association's activities within scope of the First Amendment. Therefore, nonexpressive gang activities can be regulated.

Defenders also emphasize that injunctions and loitering ordinances are constitutional because they serve significant, and often compelling, government interests by reducing the threat to public health and safety caused by gang activities. They note that in the case of an Injunction, gang members are free to conduct their expressive activities outside of the geographic area defined in the injunction. Thus, the injunction is likely to be upheld because it is narrowly tailored.

Though defenders believe these anti-gang initiatives will become important weapons for law enforcement, they acknowledge the danger of guilt by association. They believe, however, that this problem can be avoided if law enforcement officials adhere to constitutional standards in determining who should be subjected to anti-gang provisions. Judges must also carefully review evidence for each defendant to make sure the person has not been unfairly prosecuted.

Despite criticisms leveled by the ACLU and others, proponents of anti-gang laws adamantly support their use. While some of these initiatives may prove ineffective, law enforcement should be given the chance to test new ways of addressing destructive elements within their communities. Modifications can be made, and new initiatives plotted, but proponents insist that the law is necessary to protect the health and safety of citizens.[/rquoter]