Many cities have seized upon the strategy of seeking civil injunctions as a way of curbing gang activity.

Predictably, this strategy is quite controversial.  The Salt Lake Tribune contains an article headlined “Utah Supreme Court throws out Ogden gang injunction.  Supreme Court says county can’t ban Trece members from associating.”

The Utah case involved an injunction of 315 to 500 members of the gang who were prohibited from gathering within a 25-square-mile “safety zone.”

The ban included “driving, standing, sitting, walking, gathering or appearing together with any known member of Ogden Trece anywhere in public view or anyplace accessible to the public,” with the exception of school or church situations, according to court documents.

You can access the ruling of the Supreme Court of Utah at this link.

But, the news is that appellate courts are not looking favorably on civil injunctions.

The Associated Press reports on a ruling that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued:

The 9th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals said the 2009 injunction granted by a state court against alleged members or associates of the Orange Varrio Cypress gang was extraordinarily broad, impinging on constitutional liberties and everyday activities, and that there was a “considerable” risk of error in identifying alleged gang members.