## Facts

- San Jose’s city attorney brought a civil action to abate a public nuisance allegedly created by a criminal street gang’s activities in the Rocksprings neighborhood.
- The alleged nuisance included persistent public congregation by nonresidents identified as gang members, intimidation of residents, open drug use and dealing, noise, obstruction of sidewalks and traffic, and recurring violent and property crimes.
- The trial court issued a preliminary injunction against 38 named individuals alleged to be gang members, limited to a defined “safety zone” covering the affected area.
- Two provisions were central to the dispute: (1) a ban on being in public view with other named defendants or known gang members within the safety zone; and (2) a prohibition on confronting, intimidating, annoying, harassing, threatening, challenging, or provoking residents, patrons, or visitors in the neighborhood.
- The court of appeal invalidated these two provisions as constitutionally and statutorily defective, while otherwise accepting the nuisance theory.
- The state supreme court reviewed whether these two provisions could stand as part of a civil nuisance-abatement injunction.

## Issues

1. Whether California public nuisance law authorizes a municipality to seek injunctive relief against named individuals to abate gang-related activities in a specific neighborhood.
2. Whether a safety-zone no-congregation/no-association term impermissibly infringes freedom of association or unlawfully targets status rather than conduct.
3. Whether an injunction term barring “annoying,” “harassing,” and similar conduct is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad under due process principles.
4. Whether the injunction’s restrictions on presence, movement, and association are sufficiently tailored to abate a documented neighborhood-wide nuisance.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held that the city attorney could pursue a civil public nuisance action to abate gang-related conditions affecting an entire neighborhood.
- The Court reversed the court of appeal’s invalidation of the key provisions and sustained the core injunction, including the safety-zone no-congregation restriction, as a permissible nuisance-abatement remedy.
- The Court upheld most of the challenged “annoying/harassing” provision by construing the language narrowly in context to reach intimidating conduct causing reasonable fear or substantial distress, not trivial irritation.
- The Court treated the order as civil and preventive, emphasizing its limits to a small geographic area and to specifically named individuals tied to the nuisance-creating activity.

## Legal Principles

- Public nuisance statutes permit equitable relief to restrain conduct that substantially interferes with the safety, comfort, or enjoyment of a community or neighborhood.
- A civil injunction may restrict otherwise lawful conduct when the conduct materially contributes to an established public nuisance and the relief is tailored to abate that nuisance.
- A safety-zone restriction on public congregation among identified gang members may be upheld when directed at nuisance-producing conduct and limited by geography, parties, and factual context, rather than punishing mere gang status.
- Injunction terms challenged as vague may be sustained if, read in context and given a narrowing construction, they provide fair notice and reduce the risk of arbitrary enforcement.

## Conclusion

The court approved the use of civil public nuisance actions to curb gang-created neighborhood harms and upheld a tailored anti-gang injunction, including a safety-zone no-congregation restriction and a narrowed anti-harassment provision, as a constitutional and authorized preventive remedy.


People ex rel. Gallo v. Acuna, 929 P.2d 596 (Cal. 1997)