Shoshana Walter/The Bay Citizen

Audience members line up to comment about Oakland's gang injunctions during a Feb. 22 public safety committee meeting

For now, it appears the Oakland City Council will not take a stance on the city’s highly controversial gang injunctions.

After nearly three hours of testimony from residents and organizers on both sides of the debate, members of the Council's public safety committee decided against putting the injunctions up for a full Council vote.

An injunction was imposed on an area of North Oakland last year, and a second one has been proposed for Fruitvale. The injunctions are championed by City Attorney John Russo to combat gang violence. They impose restrictions on the movements and interactions of specific individuals, whom Russo alleges are gang members, within the injunction zone.

But chair Pat Kernighan said the committee, which is comprised of four Council members, would order an evaluation of the injunctions in one year.

“I think we want to have an evaluation before any further gang injunctions are done in other neighborhoods,” she said.

Their decision came after hearing hours of testimony by residents both for and against the injunctions, and in the midst of heated court hearings over the proposed injunction against alleged members of the Norteno gang in Fruitvale. Judge Robert Freedman may decide today whether or not to grant the preliminary injunction. The evidentiary hearing continues at 2 p.m. 

Inside the packed Council chambers Tuesday night, rival sides hoisted pink and green signs, intermittently interrupting the meeting's decorum with a boo or hiss.

Council members commented on the “polarizing rhetoric” behind the debate, questioned the amount of money spent on the injunctions and pointed out the minimal evidence proving their effectiveness. 

Several individuals named on the proposed Fruitvale injunction list said they have already been harassed by police, and defense attorney Michael Siegel noted that because the proposed injunction allows for the addition of more names, police would scrutinize others not on the list. He pointed to the short list of criteria police use to classify individuals as gang members, including clothing and associations. The majority of those named on the North Oakland and Fruitvale injunction lists are black or Latino.

“So if I am walking down Fruitvale and I’m wearing a Titans cap and going to a party at Ignacio’s house, am I going to be arrested? Of course not. I’m white and I’m wearing a suit,” he said, to some laughter and claps from the audience. “But would my brothers and sisters in this struggle?”

Organizer and East Oakland resident Aurora Lopez said racial profiling is already a problem in Oakland.

“If you think police in our communities are going to fairly enforce this gang injunction, you guys are kidding yourselves,” she said. “We’re kidding ourselves.”

Several injunction critics also pointed to studies that show injunctions have not led to sustained drops in crime, but have led to increased civil rights violations and racial profiling.

But Council member Rebecca Kaplan, who defended Russo’s proposal, said Oakland’s injunctions are not comparable to those injunctions.

“These injunctions are being publicly referred to as gang injunctions even though the documents are enjoining specific individuals,” she said. “Some cities have done an actual gang injunction. They would say all members of Crips and Bloods cannot be in this place at this time. That’s not what this is saying.”

Kernighan agreed with Kaplan, likening Oakland's injunctions to restraining orders. She said she supported the injunctions.

“There has to be the push and the pull,” she said. “You offer people jobs and opportunities but most people won’t leave a gang until there is a push. There has to be pressure from law enforcement, as well. I know not everyone shares that view.”

Injunction supporters had a more visible presence than during previous meetings. They described terrifying encounters with crime and bemoaned the problems at the police department. Many expressed support for community programs, but said more law enforcement is needed.

“Twenty-five years ago I would not have supported gang injunctions,” said resident Ralph Cook. “But when you specify individuals who are known to commit crime – we spend millions of dollars on children first but we can’t improve the lives of children if we do not provide an umbrella of safety in which they can live.” 

Frank Rose, chairman of the board of the East Oakland Boxing Association, turned his attention to the anti-injunction organizers in the audience.

“You down here fighting for the people who created these problems, these gang members,” he said. "If you think you're protecting somebody, you're just making the gangs go on and on and on and on, and you should be ashamed of yourselves."

After the hearing, as Council members and activists gathered outside the chamber doors about 9:30 p.m., Mayor Jean Quan emerged from her office. She said the Council is not likely to vote on the injunctions anytime soon.

While some individuals named in the proposed Fruitvale injunction have not committed crimes in several years, others have had very recent encounters with police.

Because of that, Quan said, the judge is likely to grant a preliminary injunction against some of the individuals, but not all.