tv Government Access Programming SFGTV July 8, 2018 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
trying to address. so, again, i'm not sure what exactly your role in this is, other than as an advisory body because the reentry council is to the city attorney. but i certainly, strongly, urge you to take this question up over and over again with the city attorney's office so we can finally put an end to this really unfair and disproportionate practice. >> thank you, karen. charleen cue, peter van wesep. edgar, -- walton, jeff w. mayoni. i know i'm not saying it right. crenshaw. and charles brenson. hello, how are you? >> thanks for allowing me this time. my name is jennifer beach and i teach at san francisco state university and i work with san francisco showing up for racial justice.
my daughter was raised in bayview. i'm intimately involved in the communities affected by these gang injunctions. anything that criminalizes the black and brown in our city isn't serving our city. it's been made very clear. i want to thank jeff adachi for his eloquent explanation of the problem with gang injunctions. but i just want to remind the city who you are representing in front of me right now that we have an opportunity to make a statement about racist criminalizing practices, that as we face a period where increased incarceration and lifts of people who get special charges for expressing themselves, that really is fascism, we have to ask ourselves did we decide to do that? we decided not to do that, because the liberties we give
up and the communities that are impacted are not something we are willing to give up. so i just want to encourage you to look at the broader social situation and the importance of making very strong statements against racist criminalizing practices and that's from my neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is charleen coe, i'm a member of critical resistance and stop urban shield fight. i just wanted to echo a lot of what some of the really great folks have already said, and also push back on some of the things we heard in the presentation. first is talking about safety in the safety zones and i really want to challenge that with safety for who? whose safety are we talking about and whose safety are you all going to be fighting for in this city?
so again, it's not a coincidence at all that every single person on these lists are black or brown. it's not a coincidence that everybody on this list is from a neighborhood historically and predominantly black or brown. the poorest neighborhoods. the neighborhoods that are yet to be or currently being gentrifide. right after these injunctions were filed there were reports of mass evictions in addition to developments another speaker talked about going up. and also i think it was supervisor fewer who shared the story about someone who is having, and this is not an isolated story of folks on the list having to move out of the neighborhoods to avoid harassment from the police. gang injunctions are not only a
tool for criminalizing folks, it's also contributing to gentrification in the city. and sf is not a leader in this, as we heard, oakland ended injunctions in 2015. and i also want to point out that alameda county, as some may know ended its massive police militarization program, urban shield this year. that program was started the same year -- [buzzer] [off mic] >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> thank you for having us today. my name is peter wessep, here with just cause.
i want to thank you for holding this hearing and appreciate you holding space for this outpouring of opposition to these injunctions. which are, by their design, used to break apart communities and as we heard today, even families, often, in a way that circumvents the criminal justice system. they may be civil orders but as we have heard they often have disastrous criminal consequences as well. for city attorney herrera's office to say these are in line with the city's reputation, how it embraces diversity and supports its communities of color is to, say the least, disingenuous. s.f.p.d. despite its reputation has reformed. numerous occasions has been
shown not to have these community's best interests at heart. [reading] from your decision today to hold this hearing and from the statement and questions you have made today, you have made it clear you understand this issue deeply. data suggesting these injunctions are devastating san francisco's communities of color in multiple ways abounds. my hope is you all will use this knowledge and it will lead you to a conclusion that have been notably achieved in oakland and los angeles and you will move to end these injunctions in our diverse and fair city. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is harris everly.
i want to first give thanks to the reentry council for taking this measure up and also supervisor fewer in the public safety committee. i worked along with the article with nikki jones when she was a professor at santa barbara. eddy rock, plaza east, k.o.p. robert pitch, these are all young men and most of them are family members that grew up in the same household. but i would speak of one young man, one young man jamal gains that was in city college going to medical school and he was placed on a gang injunction for a break-in of a car and stealing a radio and unfortunately he was murdered. so a lot of these gang
injunctions, what they did, they targeted individuals and then individuals became targets because of that gang injunction. not only did you add people to the list that weren't gang members or anything like that he might have stole a radio to sell it to enhance, give money to buy more guns or drugs. one of the things it did create more violence, it created more homicides because of the people on this list. people were targeted because they were listed on this gang injunction. that's one thing it didn't do, didn't reduce increased homicides. i've been working in the western edition for 40 years now. i have seen the decrease, the increase all around and i know for a fact that increased homicides of getting people on that list. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please.
>> thank you for having this hearing. my name is jeff wozniak. law firm that fought the injunction. the oakland injunction was no different than the san francisco injunction. we had a group that fought that injunction. we are looking at them saying what exactly is happening here and the only thing that can, i think, be shown about injunctions is city attorney's use them for their own benefits but there is no clear benefit to the communities and to the cities. and one specific point i want to make about the western edition injunction, if you look at the remaining people that herrera left, seven are currently in custody. they are not people that are
out on the streets, they can't be shown to be active gang members in the sense they are a nuisance to the community. if we really care about reentry and about welcoming people back in society after they have dealt with their cases, injunctions aren't the way to do that. they don't help anybody and we have to get rid of them. thank you.
we need to start having conversations about meaningful employment and mental health services and other services that will bring up the quality of life here. when we have conversations about things like the gang injunctions we should have gotten rid of a long time ago we really distract ourselves from having those conversations and thinking of long-term solutions for our community.
it actually keeps law enforcement from doing our job. we mentioned what's the difference between carrying a firearm as a non-gang injunction member and somebody who is listed on the gang injunction and there really isn't a difference. law enforcement needs to do their job. this is not a way for them to create a pig pen around communities they want to criminalize. and then the last thing i would say is we haven't talked about this but gang reduction intervention that goes to cities that have gang injunctions are working to so-called do gang suppression, there's a lot of money that comes from that, law enforcement definitely benefits and takes care of their own programming with that money. i really think we should consider, it's 2018, it's just time to let it go. >> your name, please? >> crea gomez. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
>> hi, my name is kamal watson, i work with the transgender -- project, i'm also part of the crew of many folks who have come here from working against the gang injunctions in oakland starting in 2010. i don't think anyone is saying that crime, harm and violence within our communities doesn't need to be addressed. what we are saying is social economic and political problems which are often the root causes, cannot be addressed by gang injunctions or increased policing. gang injunctions don't give people jobs, don't reduce the stress of jail and policing, they don't give youth safe spaces to congregate free of harassment, so if we want to increase safety in our communities and support the dwindling black and brown communities of san francisco,
we need to prioritize opportunities for our youth, loved ones coming home from prisons and jails to stay in their communities rather than make it harder by continuing to criminalize, we want to see measures that help so they can stay, so they can thrive and take their children on field trips and not move from a place of terror. when there are more opportunities for folks to be criminalized when there are more opportunities for folks to be policed and more opportunities for black and brown people to end up in cages than there are for them to get living wage jobs, find affordable housing and not be continuously traumatized by the state and by police harassment that's a problem and we need to reassess our priorities and one should be deauthorizing and defunding the gang injunction and reinvesting in our communities. thank you.
protect each other, and gain injunctions. let's get an injunction against sfpd. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. hi. >> good afternoon. thank you for holding this hearing. my name is jeremy miller. i'm based in the bayview-hunters point of san francisco. i'm also a former bayview-hunters point resident and a long time resident of the city and county of san francisco. much of what i would say has been said by other speakers today, so i will keep to the one or two points that i feel have not been adequately addressed. the first point is that gang injunctions are part of the erosion not only of our standards of life as black and
brown san franciscans, but of our constitutionally guaranteed rights in this country. there is actual -- there is no actual legal basis for said gang injunctions if you actually apply the highest law of the land. it is part of the erosion of liberties that has consistently been happening for the last several decades since the '80's, when it was determined by the supreme court that the police were reasonable and could determine the well-being of the community. that has since been over and over and over proven wrong by the bloody history of the san francisco police department as well as other departments around the country and the world. this is all well documented as opposed to the completely filmsy or complete lack of evidence that is used to give someone a gang jacket. i lived in bayview-hunters
point when the oakdale mob was created by the san francisco police to terrorize young man. it is a criminal act of state by the city. it must be removed immediately. we demand this. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is ro kchene eisner. i want to apologize for my neighbor mr. jones for everything he's been through ostensibly in my name. by committing no crime, i have put him in violation of his court order. you asked what the court order does, it will tell you. they are rolling papers. they are illegal. they're only used for marijuana and tobacco, both of which are legal, but if you read the court speaker, please.
>> hello. thanks for having this hearing. my name is jennifer rubeve, and i'm with racial justice showing up in san francisco. that's okay. i'll just wait till you're done. >> supervisor peskin had to go testify up stairs. he wanted to be officially assigned to this committee. supervisor sheehy was unable to make it. we want to have a quorum. please set the time again. >> my name is jennifer ruby,
showing up for racial justice in san francisco. i want you to notice here who is defending the gang injunctions, and who is here asking for an end to the gang injunctions. there is no one here defending the gang injunctions who's not paid to do so. so that's all it needs to say. everybody else who is here is here on their own time, dinner time, family time, after working because it is important to see an end to these injunctions, and i would echo what the person before me said. presumably, this is done in my name as a white resident of san francisco. we recognize that the gang injunctions are a tool for intimidation, targeting, violence and control over black and brown bodies. as was also said, these are remnants of what we now know to be a very specific way of targeting and incarcerating
black and indigenous people of color in the war on drugs. the gang injunctions maintain a racial caste in this city. gang injunctions give cops way too many outs to justify poor judgment, and we know what that can result in, everything and up to the firing squad of sfpd. >> supervisor fewer: sorry. your time is up. one more sentence, please. >> okay. calling for an end to the gang injunction in san francisco. thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is andrea. i'm a social worker here in san francisco, and i'm also a
member of the sf no injunctions coalition. i've been a resident of the mission of 22 years, one of the neighborhoods that's been enveloped in the gang injunction, and i've witnessed a tremendous amount of change in the mission at that time. in '96 i moved to 20 right off of valencia, and i lived for a decade right off of 24 street. both of those areas were havens for gangs, and i say havens because both places need to -- in the context of marginalization of people of color, i think when you're pushing them out and giving them no option, social inequities are going to rise. i feel like we're not talking about the public safety as -- in gangs, like, it doesn't matter if they're in gangs or not in gangs. gangs -- youth in gangs also have a right to public safety and for us to be concerned about their public safety.
and both of the neighborhoods where i lived within a year of moving in, there were drive-by shootings that killed somebody. and i heard a man die literally under my window. and you know, he was there every day, selling crack to those kids, and nobody evercared about that. nobody did anything. i'm sorry. i try not to think about hectaring somebody die. it's a horrible memory. and then, when i moved into my second neighborhood, someone also was killed, and i became friends with that family after that. and her brother was active in the gang on the block. and because of that, because i talked to them, because i treated them like neighbors, once when i was in a situation, he actually came to my rescue because i always treated him with respect, and i think that's what we need to do with our youth, and that we need to think about -- we need to
incorporate them in our communities. it doesn't matter if they're in a gang. they have families, they have people that love them, and they deserve to be treated as if they're part of their community and that we want them to be there, and that deserve and have a right to be safe in our neighborhood. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> good afternoon you all. thank you all for having this hearing. i just want to say we oppose this gang injunction, and before i get to why i oppose this specific gang injunction, when i was an undergraduate, i was part of a coalition that fought against a gang injunction. it's kind of scary to see the connections we see in l.a., in oakland, in orange county. in all these lists, it's always black and brown people that are being targeted, and it's always areas that are working class and areas that are being gen i
gentrified. this is just another form inform racially provide folks, criminalize folks and throw them into a mass incarceration that already has 2 million people, vast majority of black and brown folks. i know it's been offered injunction as a tool against violence. the solution is not going to be a gang injunction, but it's going to be ethnic studies, it's going to be folks knowing their history, proud of where they come from, it's going to be fair wages where folks don't have to be choosing between living wages and selling drugs. sanctuary starts when black, brown, red are included in due
process. i just want to say last thing. i'm not going to remember the presentation and what does this began injunction do from the presentation, i'm going to remember the legacy of the gang injunction of a man who's trying to do the right thing -- getting let go twice and do the right things by his kids. it's criminalizing folks that shouldn't be further criminalized by the system. so thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. next speaker, please. [applause] >> good afternoon. my name is alexander post. i'm with the democratic socialists of america. i'm also an appellant attorney at the office of the state public defender, so i see the results of gang policing at the back end, where too many people are sentenced to multiple years for both a substantive gang offense and enhancement from the penal code 186.22. a lot of that is based on the
testimony of a gang expert which is the testimony of a police officer. just to walk you through what that looks like, i have a case where one of the pieces of gang activity, gang association was a client who was doodling a bird in his school notebooks. you know, obviously, that's a symbol from the united farm workers, but the gang expert, the police officer testified that that's a norteno symbol. so when they talk about facts or evidence to demonstrate whether someone is associated with the gang, that's the sort of evidence that they're talking about, basically, the opinion of a police officer. and you know that's just the back end. you've heard about the over policing that occurs at the front end, so i won't delve into that. the one thing i want to say is that the presenter called the gang injunctions a tool to fight crime, and that's nothing new. the state comes up with tools over and over again because they find the constitutional restrictions on what they're allowed to do onerous and they find ways around it.
that's what stop and frisk it. but there is already a tool, and that's the fourth amendment. if the police feel there's activity, gang activity, they can by probable cause go and apply for a warrant. you know, the presenter again talked about individuals can come and opt out, but the burden should not be on the individual to prove their innocence, the burden is and should remain on the state. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any public speakers? [applause] >> supervisor fewer: seeing none. >> i also want to give anyone a moment to went to the overflow room to come back. i should have made this announcement earlier. just give a second. okay. with that, if there's no more public comment, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor fewer: i also wanted to mention today that i think in the audience we have -- is it lieutenant noah
mallenger. i'm so sorry, i didn't have you in my presentation, but i wanted to make you available if we had any questions. lieutenant, is there anything you'd like to add? if there is, i'd like to give you an opportunity to speak. i think we've heard a lot. >> we have heard a lot. i think i'm not the gang expert here. the inspector here is, i run the gang task force, and a broad overview, i think yvonne did a good job in presenting what the overview looks like. do you have any specific questions that i can help you with. >> supervisor fewer: i think my main question is we've heard a lot of testimony today, and i think we also learned a lot about gang injunctions, and we learned about how individuals are actually -- their lives have been sort of affected by this even though they are not involved in gang activity any longer. so we have heard today that police have stopped people that are on gang injunctions simply doing just what regular people
sort of do, taking their children to a disney on ice show or walking in the neighborhood. can you shed some light on why that might happen, and what the police use as criteria when they know somebody is on a gang injunction list to stop them and detain them? >> well, stop and detain them, they would need legal right to do that. i'd have to look up each individual case that people are talking about and find out what exactly happened. a lot of times people remember things certain ways, and other people observe things a different way. so each individual incident would be reflected in a police report, and if there was an arrest made or a detention, there would definitely be something that's in records. it would be something to look up. i'd be happy to look up anything you'd like. >> supervisor fewer: so lieutenant, in your opinion, do you think these individuals on gang injunction lists, do you see that there are many arrests
of people who are on gang activity who are on gang injunction lists in the last two years? >> there have been a lot of gang arrests in the last two years. whether they were arrested solely for the gang injunction, i can't speak to that, but oftentimes you'll arrest people for a number of things, and the misdemeanors are minor, charges are dropped when they go after the larger ones. >> supervisor fewer: and these are individuals on the gang injunction list. >> well, i don't have the numbers of how many people have been arrested on the began injunction list. >> supervisor fewer: okay. you're saying there have been arrested on the gang injunction lists, but you're not sure of the number of people --
express pride in with the fact that they really provide opportunities for individuals to be part of a public process. >> so i don't know the specifics of that. you know, it is -- i am happy to look back, but that is not -- i have -- i am not saying that it didn't happen, but i have never seen that happen in our superior court. i don't know. i'm happy to look into it. i agree that is very concerning. our court is open venues for anyone, anyone who are interested as you know for whatever reason. so i'm happy to look into it. i also wanted to say to supervisor fewer's question now, i believe the inspector has some of that information if you want to hear about it today. >> supervisor fewer: and he is in the audience? >> he's right here. >> supervisor fewer: oh, inspector, i'm happy. come on up.
i have to say i've heard that story with other individuals where they were not allowed in the courtroom and therefore did not have an opportunity to speak for themselves, and also they did not have legal representation, which i think is also concerning because legal representation is very expensive for these folks. >> i agree, and we have never -- the individuals that have come with counsel, individuals who have asked to speak at court hearings, we have never once objected to their inclusion in whatever way they want to be included in the process. so the aclu, some pro bono lawyers, and jeff represented some individuals as you heard today. so i am concerned. again, i don't think our public court should be shutting their doors to anyone. i'm happy to take a look at that, but i just -- i'm sorry. i don't have an explanation for that. >> supervisor fewer: thank you
very much. >> supervisor ronen: i do think it's important that we take a look at that because shutting someone out of the process...maybe you can connect after the hearing. >> okay. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> supervisor ronen: and then also this -- mr. jones testified about how his bail was increased when he was being held on another charge, that he was later, you know -- the charges were dismissed later against him, and that the bail was increased because he was on a gang injunction. have you heard stories like this before? did you know this was a ramification which i have to say goes exactly counter to city policy where we are looking to reduce fines and
increase bail amounts that we have control over here in san francisco. so that is really concerning to me. >> i have not heard that. the standard of proof for a gang injunction is clear and convincing evidence. the standard in a trial is beyond a reasonable doubt. i have not been aware that the mere inclusion on a civil gang injunction has had any particular ramifications either on enhanced sentencing, on bail. i'm not familiar with that. the inspector might be. just in full disclosure, i had a conversation with mr. jones after he gave testimony which i thought was poignant.
he is one of the individuals we were seeking to remove from the gang injunction. >> supervisor ronen: that was my question, is somebody who is gamefully employed, who was a parent, too, who is seeking permission to go chaperone his child's field trip. it made me realize, what is the criteria, then, for someone who is seeking to opt out for them -- for their case to be excepted? mr. dachi made the point this isn't a court of law. it's unclear what your review process is when you decide whether or not to allow someone to opt out without having to go through the very expensive court process. >> so it's in the opt-out packet, the metes and bounds.
we looked at a contellation of different things. because everyone's story is different, we look at criminal activity post injunction, criminal gang activity within the safety zone. we look at life changes, jobs, children, the statements. the opt out petition itself includes an opportunity for someone to give a statement, to give references. these are all things that we look at. you know, again, we will look at as much information as possible. when the public defender sent us a letter asking us to revisit the efficacy of these gang injunctions, we asked him in our response, if you have any information about individuals who should not be subject to these gang injunctions, please let us know. we didn't receive any information, so for us -- so when we did the review, we did it based on our own criteria. if there -- post this hearing, if there are other individuals
who believe that they should also be considered to be removed from the gang injunction, i cannot urge them enough to contact our office. >> supervisor ronen: you know, i hear you, and i know you very well, and i know that you're an incredible attorney who would be very open to working with anyone. i have no doubt. but what we heard from mr. jones is that, you know, he is a rarity and that he feels comfortable, given his advanced age that he's a parent, that he's gamefully employed, to come here and stand before us in front of a camera, in front of the head of the gang task force, and you know, and the inspector and give this testimony, and he's at a point in his life where he doesn't feel the retribution will be so great, but he knows people in his community that don't feel comfortable coming forward.
and that's a very real reality. >> and i completely understand that, and i have two responses to that. one is the opt out process is confidential, and it's confidential for a reason. that, in the opt out that we negotiated with the input of the aclu and the lawyer's committee, we made it confidential so that people would feel comfortable coming to us. i personally did a motion for an individual who contacted our office, and he said i don't feel comfortable going to court. i've moved, i've changed my life in x, y, and z ways, so i understand that, and i applaud mr. jones and the courage that he has to come here and speak his mind, but it's also difficult if people have a universe of information that we are not privy to, then we can't consider it. i understand the concern of coming forward in this context, but a letter or a phone call to the city attorney's office that will that -- and the
transmittal of information through the opt out process that will remain confidential doesn't have to expose them in the same way as a public hearing. >> supervisor ronen: i guess i will make two closing points, and then i will stop, absolutely. >> go ahead. >> supervisor ronen: the first, it does feel to me from the presentation today that there's a disconnect between the city attorney's office and the ramifications of the gang injunctions on individuals' lives. i've heard you say a lot today, i don't have that data, i don't know. perhaps the inspectors will have it. well, i don't know how many cases because that's in criminal court. but -- but all those ramifications which has led to mr. jones losing several jobs, being -- not only traumatizing his children when he was pulled over by the police officers with guns drawn, but embarrassing him in his children keys peer group.
being the mother of a five-year-old, i can't imagine what that must feel like to you. i can't imagine what that must feel like. i know what that feels like in a school community, the closeness in all of that. that really impacted me in a pretty incredible way. i just have to say how bail is increased, and so you know, family members have to borrow tons of money and sell off their goods to make bail bonds. all of the ramifications on individuals' lives that run counter to many of the policies we have as a city that result from the gang injunction. it feels like the city attorney's office is somewhat washing their hands of those implications, that -- that the job is whether or not there's a fair process to put someone on the gang injunction, whether there's a fair process to get them off, but all those ramifications in between are sort of not in your jurisdiction, and that's very
unusual for your office. >> well, and let me -- perhaps i was not sufficiently eloquent. i -- i'm not saying -- when asked for particular statistics about a particular case, about whether the mere inclusion on the gang injunction increased bail, it would be complete disingenuous because i don't know. i think we understand that being enjoined is a very serious thing and has -- and has consequences. and i don't dispute that. i think that what -- i think that what the city attorney's office hopes is that the gang injunctions help curb crime and then perhaps maybe it's a small push, maybe it's a nudge, maybe it's coincidence, but just perhaps take the individuals that are joined and maybe think
about, not forcing, abobut encouraging a pivot. respectfully, chair person ronen, i think it's unfair to say that the city attorney's office is washing its hands of ramifications. we have some isolated incidents. i'm happy to drill those down, but i don't think -- i think the gang injunction has also had other conconsequences that we're not discussing here. >> supervisor ronen: and i know -- i'll just say two more things in this back and forth. >> supervisor fewer: so excuse me. so lieutenant, feel free to sit down. i feel this has gone on for a long time, feel free to sit down. >> supervisor ronen: that was going to be my next question, the absence of evaluation, the absence of data. i'm not convinced by what was presented here that we know whether or not the gang injunctions have worked. i don't know but i have not reviewed enough data to tell me
one way or another. and what i have heard from the community and from the public defender's office and from individuals that have been subject to the gang injunction is countless stories about how this has unfairly impacted someone's life, and how the police have used this injunction in certain instances in ways to racially profile, and that's what this hearing is about. is that happening, what's going on? and i just haven't received enough evidence to feel comfortable that we should continue to take away someone's right to association, right to expression because, you know, they may or may not be involved in a gang in this way, especially when we've had this program for so many years, and we have not had an evaluation of it. i do find that strange, and i do find that problematic, and i
do think we need some of that professional evaluation done. and then, number two, i don't forget my train of thought, which i have in a minute. you know, the fact that mr. jones -- it sounds like hasn't made a new change in his life. and i know nothing about your circumstance, mr. jones, other than what you told us here today. but it sounds like to me that you've been employed full-time in a job for quite sometime, and he's still on a gang injunction today, yes, because of the aclu contacting you and advocating for it, he is finally going to get off the gang injunction. great news, but why hasn't he been caught by the city attorney's office before now, given that, you know -- given his story and all the things that happened. and that's what i'm saying that if we're going to do something
that's so serious in taking away someone's right and subjecting them to so many ramifications for being on this list, then i hope that we are very thorough and constantly making sure that it's absolutely necessary to achieve your stated goals that someone stays on this list, and i'm not convinced that that's happening, either. and so you know -- >> well, i think it is concerning also, that according to the 2007 m.o.u., it specifies that reviews of each injunction would happen every two years. i think if that had happened, i think mr. jones would have been off that list years ago, and i think he would have been saved the humiliation at his child's school and taking his children to disney on ice. so i am wondering, and i would like to see those reviews that happened every three years because by the 2008 m.o.u.,
every three years, we're supposed to have a review. so i have not seen documentation, so i think that this legislative body is now asking and requesting for copies of those reviews that were done every three years, and if people were taken off that list. and also, i -- i think that what supervisor ronen is also saying is we can't rely on just the police, that there are other community members that really have their ear to the ground that we should also be consulting whenever we put someone on the list like this. we have heard about the heavy burden today on the shoulders of mr. jones, but we have heard it from other people were. i didn't know what gang injunctions were, but when i heard about these individuals that actually went to court and were not permitted in the courtroom, who worked for muni for seven years, who are raising their children, who have their lives together, and
maybe at one time were involved with people in a gang but now have grownup, i just -- i feel like you're speaking to someone who has been given many chances in life. and when i look at this, and it is such a burden to have on you, and when you said up until he's 50, he might have this on, he might have this on for the rest of his life, that kind of sentence, that kind of hopelessness is very damaging, but also inhumane and not called for. i think i'm with supervisor ronen on this, that if we do th this, that we have to be so careful, and we have good evidence, and it is the last resource that we do, and that we have definite evidence, that this type of restrictions on people, these injunctions that they are really, really productive, and they are the ones that are actually causing the reduction in the activity.
and so -- and i just want to say that we have great respect for the city attorney and the city attorney's office. it's not about that. it is really just about something i think that we did in 2007, when we firmly believed that i believe the city and county of san francisco really believed that this is what we had to do because we had extreme gang activity. and then, i want to ask just because it's been brought up, do we have any gang injunctions of white gangs? are there any white gangs in san francisco, and are there any injunctions for other gangs of other races other than black and brown people? [please stand by for captioner switch]
important. and the city attorney has always been committed to looking and making sure that what we do is effective and whether it's in our sanctuary city against the current administration or it is our old city apartments case or all of the many cases that we bring affirmatively on behalf of this city that resulted in an injurchtiondz, we want to know that the work this we're doing -- we are republic lawyers and we want to know that the work that we do is effective. so i think that the inspector
will give you figures to let you know from our standpoint that these injunctions work. and you also asked about -- you asked something else, supervisor fewer, that is escaping me. were there other? oh, the reviews, i'm sorry to interrupt. the reviews. the reviews, we have an ongoing dialogue with the police department so the three years that is in the m.o.u. is to us is a minimum, okay? we amended -- we modified those injunctions in 2009 and in 2011 and in 2013. but outside of those modifications we had discussions with the police department on an ongoing basis. >> supervisor fewer: so i know that you have done these reviews and you have gotten this and so what i would like to see are the official reviews and the results of those reviews? >> so one of the things that we'll have to talk about is then in what format we talk about that, because these are -- it's
existing litigation and our reviews are work product. and we are in an open session. >> supervisor fewer: so are you saying that the 2008 m.o.u., did it call for a written review, any documentation of that review? >> let me pull it, just a mome moment. my recollection is that it didn't but i just want to -- i like being precise. no, it does not. what it says, and i'm happy to read it and to provide you a copy, the city attorney shall conduct a review every three years from the date that a
permanent injunction was issued and to determine if the injunction should continue in effect and if any individual should be removed from the enforcement. and if they determine that an individual should be removed, the city attorney will seek a court order modifying the injunction and a notice of removal is given to that individual consistent with the law unless otherwise ordered by the court. so, for example, we got the injunction in 2007. in 2009, well within the three-year period we modified that injunction. >> supervisor fewer: and you took people off the list? >> and we add people on. so the periodic review is to see, right, because, again, gangs are not -- you know, we can debate whether or not -- i know that there are opinions is that gangs don't exist. i don't share that opinion, but what i do agree is that injunctions are not static entities, right, they're not static organizations.
they move. and so some people are active and then after a few years they're no longer active and some others are and that's the point of the review is to make sure that the injunction has -- serves the purpose that it's designed to do. >> supervisor fewer: so in 2011, you did a review in 2014 -- >> 2013. >> supervisor fewer: 2013. did you take people off the list? >> we only took people off in 2013. >> supervisor fewer: and so, mr. jones wasn't considered to be taken off in 2013? >> mr. jones was subject to the 2011 gang injunction and 2013 would have likely been to a shorter time period. right? when we bring these injunctions -- and, again, i'm happy to give you a full set so you can see what we're talking about. it is responding to crime and nuisance that is occurring, right and that is very recent. it's not something that -- it's not looking at a conviction or
an arrest from 10 years ago. to have conduct you have to show that it's likely to occur in the future. so there has to be a temporal element, so, again, i don't have the details in front of me but i would gather that just not enough time had lapsed. and that's not unusual, right? if we are actually enjo having e gang members you expect in a year or two years in this is not enough time to pass. >> supervisor fewer: but this is 2018. >> right. >> supervisor fewer: so when you think about it that it isn't joined in 2011, those are many, many years. i mean, when you think about that, oh, 2013 was too short and then 2014 is too short and 2015 and here we are at 2018 and we had not called this hearing, if we had not asked for it, would mr. jones be off the list?
i think that is also a question for us to ponder. because i think that we see this -- and i have to say that we have the utmost respect for our city attorney and everything that you say that the city attorney's office has done, absolutely. it's just that we question sort of is this the thing that is going to stop violence and it's a question of importance and are there other things that we can do or other tools that we can use that aren't actually impacting people's lives in such a severe way where they're actually not even part of it? i think that it's one thing to be on it. what i am hearing is that it's difficult to get off. and so i think that is sort of our concern also. we understand that maybe one time in someone's life that he might have been on the list. but then it's so hard to get off of