People v. Broderick Boys

On February 20, the ACLU Foundation of Northern California appeared in the Third District Court of Appeal to argue that a West Sacramento gang injunction should be vacated. The ACLU Foundation of Northern California contends that the City of West Sacramento failed to provide adequate notice that it was going to court to seek the injunction. The permanent injunction prohibits those being served with it from being seen in public with one another in most areas of the City of West Sacramento.

On February 3, 2005 the Yolo County Superior Court entered a permanent injunction against the so called "Broderick Boys." The City chose to provide notice that it was seeking an injunction to only one person. Four individuals, who were therefore denied the opportunity to oppose the injunction, seek to have its vacated, arguing that the City failed to provide adequate notice, as required by the Constitution.

In late December 2004, the District Attorney of Yolo County filed papers seeking a permanent injunction against the Broderick Boys "gang,"thereby attempting to place hundreds of residents of a predominantly Latino neighborhood in West Sacramento on permanent probation without any trial or due process.

Among other restrictions, the injunction forbids those identified as gang members from associating with one another in public within a three-mile "safety zone" that covers 80 percent of the city, including City Hall. It also imposes on its targets a lifetime 10 p.m. curfew.

Rather than serving all 350 alleged members of this "gang," the district attorney served one person. As a result, the Yolo District Attorney was able to push through a default judgment granting a permanent injunction in just over 30 days. Individuals were served with the injunction beginning in February 2005.

In July 2005, ACLU Foundation of Northern California Legal Director Alan Schlosser and staff attorneys Ann Brick and Jory Steele filed a motion to set aside the permanent injunction for lack of notice.

After a hearing in November 2005, the judge denied the motion. The judge claimed that the ACLU Foundation of Northern California clients, who deny membership in the Broderick Boys, do not have standing to set aside the injunction. The ACLU Foundation of Northern California appealed, and the final brief in that appeal was filed in June 2006.

In addition to the appeal, working in conjunction with cooperating attorneys at Munger, Tolles, and Olson, the ACLU Foundation of Northern California recently filed a complaint seeking a judicial declaration that one of the ACLU Foundation of Northern California clients in the case, Angelo Velazquez, is not an active member of the Broderick Boys, and that the injunction should be lifted as to him.

Learn more:

Gang Order Stirs Debate (Sacramento Bee)

Benitez v. Montoya

Broderick Boys Injunction Continues to Tear Apart Neighborhood

West Sacramento Residents Targeted by Gang Injunction Denied Their Day in Court