Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors press City Attorney and community over gang injunctions; city attorney seeks removal of many names
Summary
At an extended hearing, the city attorney described San Francisco’s civil gang injunctions as court‑determined, targeted orders and presented a comprehensive 2018 review seeking to remove many formerly enjoined individuals; public defenders, impacted residents and community groups urged ending injunctions and raised concerns about racial disparities, due process and long‑term harms.
The committee devoted a lengthy afternoon hearing to civil gang injunctions, their history in San Francisco, and a comprehensive 2018 review conducted by the City Attorney’s Office.
Yvonne Muir, chief of affirmative and complex litigation in the City Attorney’s Office, explained San Francisco’s injunctions are civil public‑nuisance lawsuits brought in court and adjudicated by judges in public hearings; she emphasized the local process differs from Los Angeles because San Francisco identifies specific individuals up front and uses broad notice and service methods. Muir outlined evidence types used in filings—police reports, victim statements, photographs, expert police declarations and mapped safety zones—and described how individual cases can be modified or removed by court motion or an opt‑out process handled by the City Attorney’s Office.
As part of a comprehensive 2018 review, the City Attorney said it had filed motions to remove a significant number of previously enjoined individuals across the city’s injunctions; the office indicated roughly 53 people would remain enjoined after those motions. Muir argued the injunctions targeted specific individuals and were designed as one tool among many, not a cure‑all, to reduce gang‑related crime and nuisance in particular safety zones.
Public Defender Jeff Adachi and multiple community members strongly disputed the use and fairness of injunctions. Adachi argued gang injunctions have been used in ways that produce racial disparities, that effective reviews and documentation were lacking until 2018, and that due‑process protections and access to counsel were limited in practice. Multiple witnesses and advocacy groups described harms—job loss, travel restrictions, repeated stops by police, difficulties volunteering or chaperoning children—and urged the Board to end the practice. Jason Jones, an enjoined person, described being publicly stopped with his children and losing employment and volunteer opportunities.
Inspector Lehi Broberg and Lieutenant Noah Mallinger of the SFPD gang task force described the evidence standards used for injunctions and said enforcement requires observable conduct in a safety zone and probable cause; they also said gang activity remains a public‑safety issue in parts of the city and that alternatives—youth prevention, jobs and community programs—are important complementary strategies.
The Committee took testimony, asked for additional documentation (including prior review materials), and continued the item to the call of the chair for further consideration and follow‑up.
