COUNTY TARGETS GANGS; ORDINANCE WOULD PUNISH THE PARENTS @B DAILY NEWS STAFF AND WIRE SERVICES.

Parents whose children commit gang-related crimes could face up to six months in jail or a $500 fine under an ordinance Los Angeles County supervisors gave preliminary approval Tuesday.

The proposed law, which would affect only unincorporated parts of the county, also makes it unnecessary for authorities to obtain a court order every time they want to launch an anti-nuisance effort against gangs.

The measure was opposed as ``blatantly unconstitutional'' by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

Under the law, parents could be held liable for gang activities of their children ``if they permit or insufficiently control'' them, said the motion's sponsor, Supervisor Michael Antonovich.

Antonovich spokesperson Cam Currier said parents of gang members younger than 18 could face penalties of up to six months in jail and a $500 fine.

Gang injunctions typically bar gang members from loitering in certain neighborhoods or even associating with each other in public, and subject them to nighttime curfews.

Under the ordinance, gang members who loiter in public places to either intimidate others or conceal criminal activities such as drug dealing would be arrested, Antonovich said.

``An anti-gang ordinance would be an effective weapon in the war against gangs and free our prosecutors from repeated court appearances seeking injunctions,'' the supervisor said.

The ordinance came in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Chicago's anti-gang ordinance because it was too vague.

The court established guidelines for an ordinance that would be constitutional. The guidelines were followed in the Los Angeles County ordinance, Antonovich said.

Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California, said the law had the same problems found in the Chicago ordinance. The ACLU successfully challenged the Chicago law.

``The language of the proposed Los Angeles ordinance suffers from the same defects found by the Supreme Court in (City of Chicago vs.) Morales,'' Ripston wrote in a letter to the supervisors.

``It is unconstitutionally vague and fails to provide adequate guidelines for the police,'' Ripston said. ``In addition, the proposed ordinance fails to provide adequate notice of the conduct it prohibits.''

The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the ordinance Tuesday without comment. A second reading is set for Tuesday.

If passed, the ordinance will go into effect in 30 days.