People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna

In People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna (1997) 14 Cal. 4th 1090, the defendants, admitted gang members or identified by the police as gang members, argued they could not be subject to a gang abatement injunction unless each possessed " 'a specific intent to further an unlawful aim embraced by the gang.' " (People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, supra, 14 Cal. 4th at pp. 1122-1123.) Thus, the court was faced not with defining all the elements of membership or active participation for the purposes of gang abatement injunctions but simply with whether an element was the specific intent to further an unlawful aim embraced by the gang. (Ibid.) The Court rejected First Amendment challenges, albeit in the context of language contained in a restraining order, to a provision which prohibited a defendant from associating with "'any other known "VST" . . . or "VSL" . . . member.'" ( Id. at p. 1117.) There, it was held that a trial court could properly enjoin gang related activities, such as association with other gang members, without violating the First Amendment or related legal principles such as freedom of association and the vagueness doctrine. (See ibid.) As to one's right of freedom of association, the Supreme Court first pointed out that the United States Supreme Court has made clear that there is no "generalized right of 'social association.'" ( Dallas v. Stanglin (1989) 490 U.S. 19, 25.) Two kinds of associations have been identified as entitled to First Amendment protection--"those with an 'intrinsic' or 'intimate' value, and those that are 'instrumental' to forms of religious and political expression and activity." ( Acuna, supra, at p. 1110.) Neither type of association was found to apply in the context of a gang member's right to associate with fellow gang members.