Enjoining the constitution: The use of public nuisance abatement injunctions against urban street gangs

Gang-related crime has increasingly become a focal point of criminal law en forcement, and among the new prosecutorial efforts the most praised is the anti-gang injunction. California state courts are leading the way in this t rend, using public nuisance laws to enjoin gang members from a range of act ivities within specified city zones. The most authoritative decision on ant i-gang injunctions is the California Supreme Court's 1997 holding in People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, which upheld their constitutionality. In this note , Matthew Mickle Werdegar critiques California's model and argues that the anti-gang injunction tool is not only flawed and ineffective, but also unco nstitutional. Werdegar argues that the Acuna court should have found that a nti-gang injunctions are unconstitutionally vague, and that enforcing them through criminal penalties equates to guilt by association. In addition, We rdegar argues for a die process right to legal representation for named ind ividuals at the entry of the civil injunction. Werdegar concludes that only the abandonment of anti-gang injunctions can cure the constitutional defec ts, prevent discriminatory enforcement, and provide better solutions to gan g-related crime.