The city’s quest for a gang injunction is likely headed toward a March trial date, a Santa Barbara judge and attorneys decided Monday. The move forward, pushed by Judge Colleen Sterne — who took over the case after Judge James Brown retired last month — means the city will forgo its request for a temporary preliminary injunction, which would have put in place the same restrictions on alleged gang members as the permanent version.
City officials unveiled the proposed gang injunction in March, explaining at the time the legal filing was intended to go after Santa Barbara’s worst gang offenders. Named in the complaint were 30 alleged gang members — the baddest of the bad, city officials said — along with the entire Eastside and Westside gangs. The injunction would prohibit the targets from associating with other gang members, possessing firearms or other dangerous weapons, using drugs and alcohol, trespassing, having graffiti tools, and recruiting in “safety zones” around the city.
Monday, assistant city attorney Tom Shapiro said the city was pursuing a temporary preliminary injunction because of the usual slow, drawn-out nature of civil proceedings. He said the city had planned to file — within a week or so — a motion about 50 pages in length, while he was anticipating a 450-page declaration from Det. Gary Siegel, supplemented by 75 to 100 pages of certified court records and declarations from other officers in support of a temporary injunction.
But the judge, noting that much of the material that would be used to prove the preliminary injunction would also likely be used for the actual trial, suggested bumping up the trial date to early next year. “My question is why do it twice,” she said.
“We don’t want to hold off…and not get a hearing on this until next fall,” Shapiro said. The judge said that wouldn’t be a problem, and after a look at her calendar, proposed March. Defense attorneys — roughly eight of them were scattered in Sterne’s courtroom — gathered to discuss, and came back in agreement that a March trial date would work. So instead of filing the motion and supporting info, the bulk of it will now become evidence and be handed over to defense attorneys as both sides now prepare for trial. Most of the city’s case will be presented in the declarations of the officers, Shapiro said, and he anticipated the trial will take just two to three days.
Earlier, Sterne upheld a ruling siding with three defendants, telling the city that it could not use information gleaned from juvenile court proceedings in pursuit of an injunction against the named individuals. Her ruling was filed under seal because of the sensitive nature of the juvenile proceedings apparently referenced in the court documents.
The ruling was a small early victory — likely for several defendants, especially those who have no adult records. Like Emmanuel Padron, for instance, who has no adult record. In a video filmed by Youth Cinemedia shortly after the gang injunction announcement, Padron said he works full-time and is off probation. “I haven’t even been active. I haven’t done anything, for like three or four years,” he said. Padron is one of three people named on the civil filing with no adult criminal record.
Roughly half of the 30 people named in the injunction are behind bars, including Marcos Ramos, who is scheduled to be sentenced Friday for possession of a firearm by a felon and possessing ammunition. He is facing up to ten years in prison on that conviction, and also has two other pending cases.
Since juvenile court proceedings will be stricken, it will be up to the people to prove their allegations other ways. Regardless of the ruling, Shapiro said, “we’re prepared to meet our burden of proof.”
Related Links
- PUEBLO Chief Opposes Gang Injunction [ September 8, 2011 ]
- Gang Injunction Creeping Way Through Court [ July 8, 2011 ]
- Gang Injunction Who’s Who [ April 14, 2011 ]


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Seems like now the Loreto Plaza parking lot in front of Gelsons market should be a new "Safety Zone" to protect the public from the police.
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
October 27, 2011 at 3:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why are they waiting until March? Just do it!
waz (anonymous profile)
October 27, 2011 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
was is so Right!
Why wait for a Court of Law and a ruling by the Superior Court Judge?
If due process under the law is whatever waz and Cam Sanchez say it is, that is good enough for truth and justice!
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
October 27, 2011 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
John_Adams: Gang Injunctions have been used effectively in California on numerous occasions and have been found to be constitutionally legal. You and everyone else know that the legal challenges are simply one part of the Progressive strategy to slow down something the Left does not like. Get over it and stop supporting gang bangers, low lifes, and social deviants.
italiansurg (anonymous profile)
October 27, 2011 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
BRING IT ON, IT'S ABOUT TIME! Why are we letting these vermin get away w/ the things they do such as terrorizing innocent, hard working, law abiding citizens & neighbors?
Gang members are nothing but a cancerous growth in the colon of society & must therefore be surgically removed.
But w/ any sort of surgical procedure, the proper tools must be employed & the gang injuction is the best tool.
For you "libertarians" against the injunction, it has NOTHING to do w/ race, ethnicity, color, religion or whatever ohter excuse you throw against it.
If you're in a a gang, then the consequences are there, compliments of the injunction.
Ask the homies in La Colonia area of Oxnard, they'll tell you how their "rights" have been curtailed by their injunction.
Of course, since when was or is it a "right" to terrorize innocent people?
I hope the injunction passes for the following reasons:
1) Makes it easier to nail gang members for crimes.
2) Makes gang members undergo the same inprisonment they make their neighbors suffer.
3) Makes it to where the only people gang members can harass/hurt/kill are each other, not innocent people.
4) As a result of #1 & 3 there'll probably be less of them around.
5) It'll bunch the panties of the appeasers, enablers & coddlers of gang members up.
Bring the injunction on, it'll give these vermin a choice. Personally I think many of those listed will sscrew up BIG TIME in the initial application & personally, I hope they do :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
October 27, 2011 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"If due process under the law is whatever waz and Cam Sanchez say it is, that is good enough for truth and justice!"
- John_Adams
Oxnard had a gang injunction against the Colonia Chiques for years, and it yielded results. Maybe, you should know what you're talking about before you spew it forth.
waz (anonymous profile)
October 27, 2011 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Man, that hank guy is tough. I mean TOUGH. I wouldn't want to be in the neighborhood when his panties get in a bunch. Give 'em hell, hank.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
October 28, 2011 at 1:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
@SezMe: "Man, that hank guy is tough. I mean TOUGH."
Eventually, hank and waz will be Nurse Ratched's worst nightmare.
EatTheRich (anonymous profile)
October 28, 2011 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sez: "Man, that hank guy is tough. I mean TOUGH."
ETR: "Eventually, hank and waz will be Nurse Ratched's worst nightmare."
Damned right boys! When the mamby pambies need help against those gang member, well, you know who to call, We're in the book :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
October 28, 2011 at 11:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm with Hank on this one, but waz' rampant "caffeine" abuse is simply untenable. His flyswatter must be a double-muzzled blunderbuss. (Look it up).
Gangpunks surrender all right to live among us. Asocial and anti-social, it's not like they're mowing the lawns of invalids and doing community service.
Gangs are, by virtue of the miscreant vermin who comprise them, anathema to any evolved way of life. They should be treated as such and afforded the same protections as, say, cockroaches.
Testosterone-poisoned undescended males (and their numbskull chola slaves) will have to find another method in which to waste their worthless lives that doesn't involve the rest of us. Period.
Sub-Zero tolerance, along with the bright lights of knowledge and enactable law, is our best protection in scattering these scurrying punks and keeping our community safe from their mindless marauding.
Draxor (anonymous profile)
October 28, 2011 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I got to get me 1 of those double muzzeled blunderbusses! But Draxor, you're right in the description of these lowlifes & how they've negated their rights based on their acts, nailed it to a tee!
Totally agree w/ sub zero tolerance too, great way of putting it. But why can't the so-called "progressives" see that?
By the way, Sez & ETR, no panty wearing here guys, it's boxers all the way, the boys need their space. If anything gets in a bunch it's my boxers, it's what the tough like waz, italiansurg & Draxor have been & are wearing these days :) henry
hank (anonymous profile)
October 28, 2011 at 4:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I'm with Hank on this one, but waz' rampant "caffeine" abuse is simply untenable. His flyswatter must be a double-muzzled blunderbuss. (Look it up)."
- Draxor
So full of yourself for a guy who doesn't make sense most of the time. I guess what I said is completely opposite of what hank said. Try comprehending what is written, instead of waiting for another opportunity to make yet another failed attempt at "humor".
waz (anonymous profile)
October 31, 2011 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As for the issue of what Hank wears, this commercial addresses what Hank should--or shouldn't wear. Turn up the volume.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6UlU6...
Also, as far as who to call, this musical video addresses that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9We2X...
billclausen (anonymous profile)
October 31, 2011 at 3:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally? I prefer Hai Karate.
waz (anonymous profile)
November 1, 2011 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)