>> as i said, i am chief of affirmative and complex litigation with the san francisco city attorney's office. prior to having that position, i was a member for over a decade of the code enforcement team of our office. that is the team of lawyers that

do the gang injunction. i am one of the lawyers who worked on the sunnydale gang injunction. my hopes today are to give you information and tube responsive to your questions and concerns. i will give you a brief overview what the gang injunction what a sieveville gang injunction -- civil ganging junction is and how and why we brought them and bring you up-to-date on the 2018 activities. my sincerest hope is to be helpful to all of you and i am happy to answer questions during the presentation or after. first, these are the topics i am going to cover in my presentation. what are skill gang injunctions? when i say civil gang

injunctions in san francisco? they are done different across the state. we are unique. it is important to point out the differences and the way we brought them here versus other jurisdictions. who is subject to the civil gang injunction? where ar are the civil ganging junctions in san francisco. i will provide more detail. how can an individual be removed from the civil gang injunction? why did san francisco use this tool and did they work? did the injunctions work? then where are we now? the first what is the civil gang injunction? it is a lawsuit. it is a lawsuit against a criminal street gang that is based in public nuisance. our california laws say public

nuisance interfere was quiet enjoyment that affect the group of people or community. the injunction is a court order, nothing more. it is enforceable against active and served members of the criminal street gang within the safety zone. it is important, i know supervisors you may know this, but we think injunctions in all sorts of cases. key seek injunctions against businesses operating unlawfully i slum lords that force tenants to live in deplorable conditions or using property for human trafficking. today i focus on the injunctions against criminal street gangs and active members. it is important to note from the outset that the determination of who should be subject to a sie

sieveville gang -- civil ganging junction is made in court by a public proceeding by clear and convincing evidence. not in the shadows, not by the sfpd, it is done in court. the court retains ability to change and modify the injunction throughout the life of the case. all members that we seek to enjoin have been identified by name in court filed documents. they have an opportunity to argue against their inclusion in the eventual order. as i said, gang injunctions are subject to modification or change. they are called permanent. that is a term of art. they are always the city attorney, you will hear more, the city attorney, individual members can seek a modification of the injunction if facts and

circumstances change. what does a civil gang injunction do? it orders that active gang members refrain from doing certain activity within a safety zone. a safety zone is a geographic area ordered by the court where the injunction operates. it's is not city wide. it is only in the safety zone. active gang members are enjoined from committing crimes, from committing acts of nuisance and from committing gang activity such as associates with known gang members and displaying gang signs and symbols. it is that latter portion that creates controversy. associating and exhibiting signs and symbols would otherwise be lawful conduct. in gang injunction context, i wanted is different -- it is different. just as important as it is to

understand what gang injunctions do is understanding what they can't and don't do. first, it is not a order. none of the six gangs are prohibited from the mere presence in the safety zone. that is not how they operate. they are not criminal restraining orders. they are gang injunctions. that is different. second, we do not and cannot enjoin individuals and we do not entertain any criminal history or any juvenile court records in any way. as many of you know, juvenile court records are sensitive. they can only be seen under certain circumstances. we do not consider them in gang injunctions. we have never enjoined a enough juvenile. they do not prohibit most associations.

this applies to public space in the safety join. other than associating with known gang members it did not prohibit other types of association. fourth only enforceable against individuals found by a court in a public hearing to be active gang members. they have to be served with the injunction. which means that i can't say maybe supervisor peskin is a gang member i will serve him with a injunction. that may be how they work in la. that is not how they work here. the court enjoins specific individuals this is only for those individuals. it also, as i said, it only

applies within a designated geographic area which i said is a safety zone. the other thing not to put a finer minute. it doesn't prohibit people are living in the safety zone or working or going to school or church, associate egwith family members generally. the associational restriction is known gang members. how is that denied? other people subject to the the injunction? what is a known gang member? it is not limited to individuals on the gang injection. to prove the violation you have to prove that association contact is someone who is known to the person enjoined to be a known gang member. it is a difficult standard. i am happy to have lynn discuss it from the police perspective. it is not an easy standard to meet. it is not restricted to the

individuals enjoined. >> what happened if the person on the gang injunction is that the way to state it? >> subject to the gang injunction is in the safety zone associating with a known gang member? what happens? >> if they are found to be associating with a known gang member they can be arrested. if the gang injunction is issued and served on them they can be arrested for violation of the injunction. >> where do the pro police have to prove the person they were associating with is a known gang member is that in criminal court before a criminal judge? >> it is. sorry. ththe mouse is not cooperating.

talking about common misconceptions. there is literature that states that san francisco police officers can detain individuals they suspect are gang affiliated that is not true. the police cannot detain anyone to ascertain whether or not they are on the injunction. the nice part about the san francisco gang injunction is they don't have to there. is no ambiguity after the order about who is and who is not on the gang injunction. for that same reason, we don't have the threat that other jurisdictions have of racial profiling because an officer doesn't have the ability to say i think that person is a gang member so i am going to serve them with the injunction. the injunction is only limited to the people the court in a public hearing are found to be active gang members. it is a limited and known

universe. i have seen literature that i am applies a curfew in san francisco. we do not. who is subject to the injunction? it is not a guessing game for individuals, for the court and not a guessing game for the police. we identify the members. the order is enforced against and that is the universe. i also want to remind myself and i think it begs mention that gang injunctions were never designed to be a curial. they are not designed to supplant intervention and outreach and employment and educational activities robust prosecution and effective police work. it is just a tool.

it is a tool that we have used that we believe has been successful. it is just one tool. it shouldn't be seen to displace or do away with the need for other legitimate and effective strategies. so i alluded to this. the san francisco civil gang injunctions are unlike any others. let me explain why. take san francisco versus los angeles. there is much debate about a court of appeal decision from 2017 very critical of the way los angeles did gang injunctions. here are differences. first, in san francisco, as i have said, a court derm whose is an active gang member in a public hearing. in la the police department determined who was the gang member.

the los angeles city attorney's office with filed the gang injunction, get it against the gang then give it to the police. police would decide who is active and who should be served. ours is completely transparent and public. in la it is done in the shadows. second, our injunction and it flows from it. our injunction is limited to a discrete list of court ordered active gang members. in los angeles it is boundless. it is based on the lapd determination of gang membership. it does not see the light of day. lastly, we use all methods of service and notice to apprice individuals they are going to be subject to a gang injunction. la has much more limited service and notice. an example. when we have brought all of the gang injunctions, given notice

to the gang and members we filed the case and sought the injunction in the following four ways. attempted to personally serve every active back member, taken ads out in spanish and english. we posted notices throughout the safety zone and mailed the documents. we used every method of service and notice that is made up. we want everyone to come in and challenge the assertion in a public process. if it doesn't seem obvious, these were deliberate decisions when we brought the gang injunctions. we wanted to ensure a public and inclusive process while fighting to reduce nuisance and crime in our neighborhoods. who is subject to our civil gang injunctions? it is individual identified

active gang members found by the court to be active gang members of a criminal street gang. what does the court look to? arrest record also, police reports and that includes witness statements within the reports. photographs of tattoos and gang signs, sheriff's records, victim statements, contradictions and the amount of evidence that we compile to assure ourselves that these are individuals who really deserve to be enjoined. most gang injunctions have over 100 police officer declarations detailing the police incidents the gang conduct occur anything the safety zone. we have an individual police officer who served as expert to give an overall voice how the

gang operates and gives opinion members regarding the members to be enjoined. we include safety zones and maps. when we brought the case, the safety zone was 60 blocks. it was 60 blocks. a very intrepid parallelling in our office took in response to the court's question plotted each incident of crime occurring. all but a handful of lots had been affected by the crime at the time. we have a supervisor fewer mentioned six gangs in four neighborhoods, oakdale mol as as mal, -- oakdale mall.

kop was dismissed. in the mission then dbg and visitation valley. so i said the injunctions can always be modified around altered. how can the individual member seek to be removed from the gang injunction? three ways. one, seek an opt out from the san francisco city attorney's office. that is a method not a court filing. it is reaching out to our office to explain why the individual member believes they should not be enjoined. second, they are free to file a motion with the san francisco superior court and the san

francisco city attorney on their own initiate removals. we have done that in 2009 and 2011 and 2013 and 2018. the opt out process is de signed to be an accessible means for individuals to give us information that would help us either support or bring an application, motion to the court to remove them from the gang injunction. we consider all information given on the opt out petition and form or not, formal or informal from themselves, from community members speaking on their behalf, from family members, from the public defender'defender's office. we are more than happy to consider the information. the opt out pack ate, which -- pack at, the form plus

instructions have been served on all members subject to the injunction. we settled on the opt out after the oakdale so oakdale members were served by mail. all others are served in the regular course as we serve the individual members with the permanent injunction. what are we leaking for? the out out. i -- opt out. i didn't bring copies. look to different factors. no one is determining. we are looking for change. we brought evidence these individuals were active gang members that should be enjoin understand the safety zone. we are looking for a change. whether or not that is their own gang activities in the safety zone has diminished, that is individual is no longer active gang member they made other life choices, we will look at

anything and everything someone thinks is important for us to consider in making these determinations. since the injunctions were ordered nine people sought opt out and two were granted. of those nine the city attorney on our own removed three individuals in 2013, and we are seeking to remove another five in this latest round of modifications. one way to seek to be removed from the gang injunction is to opt out. other one is to move the court. an individual can move the court to modify the injunction or the city attorney's office can. it is the court that determines whether to grant or deny the request in a public process based on evidence. why did we seek civil gang

injunctions back in 2007? to reduce crime in neighborhoods and areas plagued by street gang violence. again, the officer can speak in greater detail about this, but there are countless stories of families that didn't feel safe in homes, didn't people safe walking outside, talking out garbage, families in sunnydale between the feuding fireside territories talked about stray bullets, streets and sidewalks blocked. fear and intimidation going down the street that is why we brought this. did they work?

>> and it was a herculean effort by the staff and code enforcement team, and these are the results. >> excuse me. one moment. we have an overflow room set up in the board chambers which is down the hall and to the right. there is a rule that everyone must have a seat, official seat here in order to stay in the room. if not, there is a tv and a

hearing and when we open up to public comment, we will call you in to speak. if anyone is standing or sitting on the floor, you need to take a seat in the room if there is one available or move to the board chamber. thank you. sorry to interrupt. okay. >> so again, as a result of this review, we are seeking court orders to move significant number of formerly active and adjudicated gang member. these are the specific numbers.

for the oakdale gang, we are seeking 14 individuals be remove ed from enforcements and 18 remain enjoined. for the western edition gang injunction, which originally enjoined kop, chopper city, and eddy rock, we are asking that 34 members be removed. and that eight remain enjoined. and in this case, we are asking the court to dismiss the case -- dismiss the civil gang injunction against kop because we do not believe they continue in any kind of fullsome or robust way sufficient to keep them enjoined. in norteno, we are seeking 16 to be remove and eight remain enjoyed. dbg/towerside, we are asking 22 be removed, and that 19 remain

enjoined. i am happy to provide cop piste of the motion to -- to provide copies of the motion to the committee, and they are somewhat volumes y voluminous. >> and 53 people remain? >> i thought it was 54. that may be correct. but i will get you that figure precisely. >> okay. you are right. it's 53. 53 remain enjoined, correct. so i am hoping that this provides an overview and a history of san francisco's civil gang injunctions, and that you understand that in a very deliberate and thoughtful way we

sought to be different here as san francisco is not unaccustomed to doing and that aired on the side of transparency and fairness. >> thank you very much. colleagues, do you have any questions? i do have a few questions. >> and you are telling us that san francisco is very different from los angeles, for example. and is much more transparent and go to court and the individuals put into the injunction. is that correct? >> it is not, supervisor fewer, because we identify who the injunction will seek. what active members and we are going to seek to enjoin. and we don't rest that on our own judgment, but put that for the court to decide.

>> what evidence do you bring -- what brings you for this to say to this individual, we bring this individual to the court and say they should be enjoined? whose opinion do you depend on this this individual should be enjoined? >> a let me answer that in two ways. first, we don't rely merely on opinions. we look at facts. we look at police reports of gang activity in the safety zone. we look at who is doing -- first we look at where is there a high concentration of crime, right? that is being perpetrated by criminal street gang. once we identify that location, we start reading police report. report after report after report to see who is doing the crime and what is happening, and whether or not a gang injunction will be an effective tool. we do have an expert who is a seasoned police officer -- >> this expert is one person, is that correct? >> there are, as i said, there are 100 police officers with the declarations that detail the difference incidents and

usually, yes, one expert who is an officer who renders an opinion. but the opinion is informed by all of the victims statements, police reports, photographs, other police records, that show not only the existence of the gang and how it operates, but that these individual members are active and should be subject to the injunction. these injunctions do not rest or fall on one person. nor do they rest and fall or one opinion. >> thank you. my next question is, so do you ever do any community-based organizations that actually have their ears to the ground in the communities? >> we have. we have throughout the history of the injunction taken meetings when community organizations have asked us for them. i believe the one that i remember was one that came from a group of community voiced organizations in the mission. i believe it was after we filed our gang injunction, but before the court had ordered it.

>> so it is before. you didn't speak to them before you went before the judge, the court, to request the gang injunction, is that correct? >> that is effect. . >> you are really relying on law enforcement reports and heavily on law enforcement and not on community, the community-based organizations that are actually working for violence prevention in the communities, is that correct or unfair to say? >> supervisor fewer, that tells an incomplete story to be honest. respectfully, the police reports have victims' stories. they have stories, as i told your aide, so they have the story, for example, of the gentleman walking down the street down 24th street in dodger gear who is asked by an individual in spanish, who do you claim as a gang? this individual had no idea what he was talking about. and didn't answer the question. and then was severely beaten. those stories are included in the police report. >> thank you very much. >> my question also is that, so i understand that we had the

first injunction in 2009. and then we haven't had any injunctions since 2011, is that correct? >> supervisor fewer, the first injunction was in 2007 and the western edition in 2008, i believe. we had -- first came the oakdale in 2007. then came the western edition and the noteno in quick succession and then the others in 2011. we have not filed a new gang injunction since then. >> that is great. and you said the review was doin done in 2009, 2011, and 2013? >> that is correct. >> do you have documentation of the reviews? we would like to see them. i haven't seen any evidence of any documentation of those reviews. of those reviews, were anyone taken off -- were any individuals taken off the list when you conducted the reviews? >> let me back up. we conduct reviews yearly.

we do not conduct reviews every three years. we are in constant communication with the police department about the injunctions. in 2009, in 2011, and in 2013, we sought to modify the injunction. we sought to modify the injunctions to remove individuals. in 2009 and 2011, we also sought to add individuals to the injunction, but the most recent round of modifications which happened in 2013, we sought to remove three individuals. >> okay. thank you. and then so you also have mentioned that people can argue against their inclusion to be on a gang, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> you have listed all the things that gang injunctions actually do not do. so tell me, what do gang injunctions do then? you say they don't prohibit

people from being certain geographic area and do not inhibit people from -- i am so sorry. i am looking at some of the stuff you gave me. that doesn't include a curfew. you are saying that police are not detain individuals if they are gang affiliated, but police can detain individuals if they are under the gang injunction, is that correct? >> supervisor fewer, police cannot detain an individual to ascertain whether they are subject to a gain injunction. >> i am clarifying the statement. i am reading it here. police cannot detain individuals they suspect of gang affiliated for purposes of a civil gang injunction violation. >> that is right. >> last question to you is, can police simply go to individuals that are on the gang list? and the right to do that on the realms and the civil gang

injunction in san francisco is not a history. there are individual members who the court has judged to be active gang members subject to the injunction. there is no police officer in san francisco who needs to question you or me or anyone else to figure out whether or not we're subject to the injunction because the list is discrete. >> i think that was my question. my question was not whether or not police can detain individuals they suspect are gang affiliated for purpose of a single gang injunction violation. my question was, can police detain individuals if they are on the gang injunction list by simply being in an area near where gangs are? or in the geographic area, for example, sunnydale. so if police say this is gang injunction on an individual allow police, then, to detain

individuals that are on a gang injunction list if they are within a certain geographic area? >> no. because a criminal gang injunction is not a stay away order. the mere presence in the safety zone is not a violation. whether or not the police can detain an individual, it is subject to the laws regarding what is applicable and question whether or not is merely standing in the safety zone, whether that gives the police the ability to detain them, it does not. >> really. okay. >> i am happy to defer to the police department -- >> no, it is fine. i am just trying to find out and asking questions with the preface of the hearing. and you have said a lot of gang injunctions do. and how are that a tool if you

are saying that it doesn't lead to this and this? what do they do? when you put someone on a gang injunction list, what happens? why do you put them on the list? what is the purpose of the gang injunction? so just explain to me through the opinion of the city attorney. >> perhaps i was not precise or clear. the goal of a civil gang injunction is to reduce crime and nuisance in a particular area that is caused by a criminal street gang. that is why we bring them and that is what they do. >> so how? i think it's a very good question. >> how do they do that? >> when you put someone in a gang injunction, what does that mean? if you were put on a gang injunction, how does that limit your ability to do anything? can you just be who you are? what does it do anything? >> well, it creates -- what it does is it says that i can't do

certain things that perhaps i used to do. >> for example, let's say that i'm arrested for brandishing a firearm within the safety zone. and now -- >> excuse me. i'm sorry. brandishing -- so you are saying you couldn't brandish a firearm anyway in san francisco. that would still be illegal. so even if you are a gang injunction or not, is that correct? >> supervisor fewer, a gang injunction lists certain things that someone cannot do. you are asking me if i am subject to an injunction what would happen, and i am telling you it is a court order that says that i can't do things that were unlawful before, and that i can't do things that are gang related. so a typical injunction says you can't flash gang signs or symbols. you can't trespass. you can't use intimidation

tactics. >> what do you mean by trespass? >> the presence on property that you have no right to be on. >> i'm sorry, there is a board rule that we are not allowed to make audible sounds in the audience of a hearing, so if you agree with something, you can do the little fingers in the air, and the air finger, and that name bother, me, or a thumb's down. thank you. >> you are say pythagorean can't flash gang signs or symbols. they can't trespass on private property. >> public property is okay. >> well, we have a right to be on public property, right? what this says is that as long as you are not -- that is why the mere presence is not a violation of the gang injunction. and someone wants to -- an

enjoined member wants to walk down the street in the safety zone, there is nothing in the gang injunction to preclude that. >> you can't trespass. you can't flash gang signs or symbols. what are other things that are on the list that people who are on the gang injunction list can't do? >> we talked about associating with known gang members. >> associating with known gang members that are not on the gang injunction list? >> as i said to chairperson ronen, the association provision is not limited to other enjoined members. >> the next one? >> there is no drug dealing, no loitering for the intent to sell a controlled substance. >> is it no loitering in general or no loitering with intent to sell? >> no loitering with intent to sell. and it is 11352 is the health

and safety code referenced in the injunction. so it means that it's no loitering with intent to sell, but if you are standing there and then you would have to have product on you, is that correct? >> that is a question for the police department. >> whether there's an intent to sell. intent to sell would mean probably you have product on you to sell. otherwise you would be standing there, is that correct? >> supervisor fewer, i am not a district attorney in this jurisdiction, and if you would like an answer to that question, i would have to respectfully ask my colleagues at the police department to answer that. >> loitering and what is the other one? >> those are the majority of the terms that i am happy, again, to send to this committee all of the expansive injunctions with the particular term, but those are the broad bushes. -- those are the broad brushes. >> if you are on a gang injunction, the list of things that you could normally do and can't do because you are in a

gang injunction are can't flash gang signs or symbols, can't trespass on private property, can't associate with known gang member, and no loitering with intent to sell. >> no position of certain crimes. >> and which i think that you can't do crimes anyway, is that correct? >> right. >> is that it? i feel like if you are filing this for the gang injunctions to the court, that you would actually know what is on the list of things that the gang injunction would modify someone's behavior or the things that could ask for a modification. and what are the modifications of the behavior. >> supervisor fewer, perhaps is reason that the modifications are just to the enforcement list. the injunction stays the same. what changes is who is subject to it. when we seek a modification, and

i am happy to hand you a copy of one if you want to see it. >> i really just am interested because i don't know. i have never been on a gang injunction list, of course. but so what you are telling me -- i don't really know what gang injunction being on a gang injunction list actually prohibits you to do. many of these things and you are prohibited from doing them anyway. what is the defense of someone on a gang injunction list? and what is it that you can't do? what is the gang member not permitted to do by virtue of the injunction and not tethered to any other kind of statutory prohibition, it is associating with other known gang members, flashing gang signs, symbols,

colors, right. those are, again, these cases are public nuisance cases designed to address criminal street gang violence. those provisions are provisions designed to remove that hold, that criminal street gangs have on neighborhoods and not to permit them tab taken over in the public ways. does that make sense? >> you are saying to me, and correct me if i'm wrong that it is sort of using a but lick nuisance area. and if you are doing something just regularly, now because you are in a gang and it is a public -- seen as a public nuisance, which actually, i want to say i think public nuisance is pretty broad. and you are in a gang injunction

list and that means that you can't do public nuisance, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> but it's defined. and my apologies. it is my fault i did not bring one of the fullsome injunctions so i could answer your questions. if during the break i am able to get that, i am happy to provide additional detail. >> i have to say that i do understand that i think there was a time in san francisco where the city attorney, i can understand, that the city attorney felt we had to use these type of measures. when there were communities being overrun by gangs and that regular folks in the community felt very unsafe. and that we needed to put in -- institute gang injunctions. i understand that we do it differently than los angeles, to our credit, so i am just trying to understand what it means to be in a gang injunction list.

and why it would be a tool in a way to combat gang activity. i think what you are telling me here is that it's just seems as though it's trying to identify individuals that are actually gang members, and then curtailing activity in certain areas that might contribute to gang activity and gang, criminal gang activity. >> the only finer point i would say is that i think it is designed to address existing gang crime and nuisance in a particular area. not suspected gang crime or suspected gang nuisance, but actual, proven gang crime and nuisance. >> okay. colleagues, any questions? >> a couple of follow-up questions. >> we did get a copy to share of the recent request to remoove

individual subject to gang injunction for down below gangsters, towerside gang, etc. i just wanted to note that seven of the 22 people who were removed from the list were deceased, which is just depressing. and i just wanted to note how much impact that's having. but for me, i think, supervisor fewer, really illustrated the fact that really because most of the activity that's prohibited is already criminal activity that's already prohibited by other laws, with the exception of associating with a known gang member and flashing signs. and so it honestly is surprising to me that that limited, really

expansive nature of laws prohibiting behavior would have such dramatic impact because the evidence that you cited to us that the gang injunctions are working, and basically cutting in half the amount of felonies. it doesn't -- it just doesn't make sense. i am curious to hear from the public and hear more about that. and that relates to the other question, is there any other evidence besides the data that you presented that the gang injunctions work besides the reduction and felony convictions from the collectively of the members subject to the gang inskruni injunction? there are. it is not as quantifiable, but for example, sometime in april of this year there was an

article that appeared in the chronicle where a woman who was a resident in visitation valley talked about what it was like living in the sunnydale housing project before the injunction versus after. she said a peaceful stroll would not have been possible. fights, screeching tires, and the unmistakable sound of gunfire kept many residents indoors, especially at night. no one dared let their children outside alone. the mother of four said. those days were terrible. now, those individuals who live in, around, or near an area that has been taken over and dominated by a criminal street gang don't time leak leak meetings, but they are affected day-to-day by this activity. that is another, perhaps, quieter voice that is out there that we hear about. and the police hear about. the other thick that i'll -- the

other thing that i'll say is that the city attorney invests in cases to bring about change, positive change. and when we find ourselves remoo remove these many individuals to us in many respects, these cases were successful because these individual people were committing acts of crime and nuisance such that court found them to be subject to an injunction, and now some years later, things have changed. to us that is a very palpable difference. to and we do not -- it does not serve us to maintain gang injunction. so when someone makes a change, whether it's because of the injunction or for other reasons and no longer needs -- there is no utility in continuing to enjoin them, that is part of

success. >> for me i co-sponsor this hearing because i am very interested to know and taking away someone's freedom of association and expression in the country is a big, big deal. that is what this does basically when there continues to be -- all the other parts that are already illegal and is taking away that right. i would like to know at the same time that the and that city has invested tons of money in community-based violence prevention programs, interacting and providing intensive case management, in youth who are involved in gangs in their lives, and arrests were made and

some hi of profile gang members who were in prison and left the city. i am curious to see more evidence because of the serious nature of what we're taking away from people. this is the and none of us want in any neighborhood in san francisco for anyone to feel they can't take a stroll down the street. absolutely not. but what i want to know and what supervisor fewer want to know is was this serious removal of individuals right, necessary, to change the and did other -- >> i don't think any of us are really talking about when the gang injunctions from 2007 and

2009 and those are very different times in san francisco. i think what we are wondering is, and and we are not going back to 2007, but we are now in 2018. and we are just wondering now in this landscape today in san francis francisco, and and what is still needed and are they an effective tool? we are trying to weigh it, and my colleagues here, we don't know a lot about it. none of us have been in gang injunctions quite frankly and recently i met individuals on the gang injunction list and i think this is something we're trying to figure out. if i may, i just wanted to know that how many succeeded?

>> nine people have opted out. and two were originally granted outright. three individuals, we brought, the city attorney's offers brought motions to remove them from the gang injunction. and then -- i'm sorry, two. two. and i believe five and one person who has opted out who will continue to be enjoined. the remaining other eight were either granted the opt out, removed by the motion of city attorney in 2013 or 2018. >> of those individuals, i think there were 100 and something on this list and nine individuals

and opted out. and of those, four of them and three opted out and two granted by courts. so really of the 100 and something, this is very small amount that i think themselves have come forward to opt out, is that correct? >> it is a small number of the total amount. i think -- yes. >> we have not added anyone since 2011. >> that is correct. when we see what is on the list and we see who is lift on the -- who is left on the list, 53 individuals, and how many are

actually been convicted of any crime in the last 24 months? how many were convicted in the past 12 months? and have we seen it's improved public safety in the past 12 to 24 months? i think that is really the question before us today. i have met with individuals who have tried to opt out and one has been working at muni the last seven years and opt out.

the children still live in the area and the mother still lives there and he was raise there had and his mother still lives there, so being on this list, he feels, he has been arrested by the police three times for being just in that area. when asked to be opted out, they said move out of the area, but when the children are there and he moved out but comes to drive the children and the midnight shift for this is the burden that i would like to lift from him. we are not here to say you should never have done this.

and fathers of children gainfully employed for multiple years that this burden should be lifted from them. with the criteria for staying on the list. that is sort of the questions, too, but we also are seeking a deeper understanding about what a gang injunction really is and how this affects the lives of individuals and trying to get their lives back on the track and should the people still be on the list. and i think we are all here to learn more and a lot of discussion around gang injunctions and for everyone here in the audience, and i

worked for children and youth for eight years and this was an issue for many of the members and many families lived in gang areas and my husband was a police officer for 35 years. and knew exactly what crime was like then. and so we understand that that is what we are debating today. and in 2018 when san francisco has undergone such big changes and in san francisco to look at whether gang injunctions are such a useful tool to keep them or as supervisor ronen said, how

do you learn there are other ways also to work with individuals? i know that we are starting in middle school and high school which is something we didn't do in 2007 and 2009 and 2008. and we have learn ed differentl. colleagues, anymore questions? >> thank you for coming today to educate us. >> supervisor fewer, you asked a few questions. would you like responses sent to the office? >> yes. and to the co-sponsor. >> anything to address and thank you very much. >> and so now i would like to invite our pibb lick defend -- our public defender to se