On Friday afternoon, Judge Robert M. Freedman imposed a temporary injunction against 40 alleged members of the Nortenos gang. The ruling came in a relatively brief hearing, which lacked the drama of earlier hearings which began some eight months ago.

As defense lawyers walked into court, they were handed a copy of a six-page document which contained the judge’s decision.

The injunction, which imposes a “safety zone” across a 450-square block area of the heavily Latino Fruitvale district, was petitioned for last October in a civil proceeding by the Oakland City Attorney’s office, then headed by John Russo. An earlier injunction covering a 100-square block area of North Oakland had been granted by the same judge in June 2010.

In the months that followed the announcement of the Fruitvale injunction, the debate became a contentious, divisive and often emotional one - both inside the courtoom and out, spilling over into City Council meetings, rallies and other public events and numerous op-ed commentaries.

At the heart of the prosecution’s case was the contention that all the named defendants were active gang members and, therefore, constituted public nuisances. An injunction, prosecutors said, granted another tool for law enforcement and would increase public safety.

But the defense painted a different picture. Granting the injunction, they said, would hamper the efforts of those who were trying to put past indiscretions behind them and would make them and their families subject to increased hardship, harassment and persecution. Numerous civil rights issues were also implicit, they argued, such as what constitutes active gang membership.

In his ruling, Freedman stated, “the court finds that the plaintiff has by the requisite burden of proof established entitlement to a preliminary injunction” and that Phase I of the case (involving five defendants, including two who testified in court) would be adopted “in substantial part, but with modifications.” The modification Freedman referred to consisted of “wearing of attire specified by an individual defendant’s employer,” i.e. a red-colored work uniform.

The courtroom session consisted of case management proceedings, which mainly concerned custodial defendants, or those currently incarcerated. During those proceedings, the issue of being able to communicate with the defendants in order to access records of their custodial terms was addressed.

Defense attorney Yolanda Huang said that she and other attorneys had effectively been denied permission to speak with clients on cases other than those, in which they were placed in custody for by Alameda County Jail officials. But, she said, a court order from the judge would effectively grant those permissions.

The judge declined to issue an order, instead ordering the prosecution to make available such records as they had in their possession and for the defense to make renewed efforts to contact their clients.

Huang also made reference to defendant David Hernandez who, she alleged, was arrested and spent 30 days in jail for the offense  of waving at someone during the Cinco De Mayo festival.

The appeal did not sway the judge.

Freedman did grant an exception to the injunction for defendants to attend legal proceedings or travel to court through the safety zone.

On March 22, defendant Javier Quintero, who was present in the courtroom, was arrested, placed in handcuffs and taken into custody during a break in courtroom proceedings, for a technical parole violation apparently committed while he was on the way to meet with Huang.

The only dramatic courtroom moment came when Latino activist George Galvis was asked by a bailiff if he was a defendant in the case.

“I’m brown, so I look like a defendant,” he replied.

Outside the courtroom, defense attorneys and a group of their supporters showed their disappointment in the decision; earlier, attorney-activist Michael Siegel (who had been recused from the case due to a conflict-of-interest) had expressed hopes that the judge would delay issuing a ruling and instead order both parties to mediation.

“That’s bullsh--. Arrested for waving,” said one supporter, in reference to Huang’s earlier statement.

“You would think [the judge] would address the main issue: Is wearing red in and of itself gang membership?” Huang said, adding that an appeal is definitely planned, on the grounds that the “order lacks specificity” and “not enough admissible evidence.”

Attorney Jeff Wozniak said  he was “disappointed in the Judge’s ruling. In looking at Javier (Quintero) and Abel (Manzo), how they’re leading their lives. Javier’s  fully employed, lives with his family, provides for his family and is not an active gang member.” Freedman, he said, was “unwilling to take a stand against this unjust proceeding.” The defense, he said, had “a lot of fight left in us.”

A visibly upset Quintero declined to comment, but his sister Esmerelda said, “I’m not ok with the decision. We presented a lot of proof of what really goes on, and [the judge] seems to not listen to anything that we have to say.”

Galvis was less diplomatic, calling the Judge a “coward.

"He’s so risk adverse, he’s not even willing to do his job and uphold the law," Galvis added. "We’ve provided egregious examples of abuse already - the young man who waved at his friend on Cinco de Mayo and was picked up by the police, the example of Javier Quintero, which happened in the context of his own courtroom."

Freedman, Galvis alleged, “wouldn’t name any of the defense by name, he wouldn’t look them in the eye, he clearly granted and allowed everything that the City Attorney’s office requested, with the exception of the employee  uniforms. It’s extremely disappointing that we don’t have someone who’s actually willing to uphold the Constitution and protections for everyone. What’s really clear is that young men are being harassed not for violating the law or committing a crime, but just merely for being.”

The decision, Galvis said, “could give license to and create a wider gate for the rampant police abuse that we’ve already witnessed here in Oakland.”

From a community organizer perspective, said Aurora Lopez, the reaction is, “for us ... we’re still in the fight. No matter how much the City Attorney’s office and the police department continue to push for an injunction, it gives us the more energy to push back. We will continue to resist. Our fight is not over.

"For us as a coalition, our demands continue to be about self-determination, holding government accountable and ending all forms of violence, including police violence.”

Alex Katz, director of Communications for the City Attorney’s office, declined to comment, instead referring reporters to the judge’s ruling.