Greetings!
The Santa Rosa City Council is currently in the process of arming its police department with City codes carrying misdemeanor charges for what they define as "serious and repeated" Quality of Life criminal offenses. Obstruction, loitering, trespassing, and camping seem to be the key offenses, and Homeless Action! believes that criminalizing these behaviors when no housing is available constitutes violations of basic constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment.
Seeing no evidence presented by the City to support the Police Department's assertion that homeless were ignoring repeated infractions issued for the more serious of these offenses, Homeless Action! decided to investigate police records. We submitted a Public Records Act request on September 5th for the infractions issued for these offenses from January 1, 2016 to the present. Initially, the Department refused to provide us with the necessary records. Upon appeal contesting their legal authority to withhold the records, the Department sought a legal opinion. The City Attorney advised that compliance was necessary, and the records were supplied on November 28, 2017.
We have examined the database of infractions supplied us, and extracted 716 records which were given for obstruction, loitering, trespassing, and camping. We integrated those into our own database of California state misdemeanor charges issued by the Department for similar offenses (144 since Jul 15, 2017). We found 19 individuals who had been given 4 or more City infractions in the past nearly two years. We found seven individuals who had been given 2 or more state misdemeanors in the last five months. Only one person received both a City infraction and a state misdemeanor charge.
So these 26 people must constitute the "serious and repeated" offenders, upon which our department is seeking to charge the offenses as City Code violation misdemeanors. To be clear, they have not charged anyone in the City for these offenses as misdemeanors since the Council discussion in early August.
Our next step will be to research the disposition of these infractions and misdemeanors to determine if the charges were prosecuted, and what the court outcome was.
In parallel, we submitted a Public Records Act Request on November 9th for a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which the City Attorney told the Council at their August 9th meeting was being developed by her office for submission to the District Attorney to define the responsibilities of each in the process of implementing these new misdemeanor charges. The City supplied this document on December 1, 2017.
The document indicates that the District Attorney expects the City Attorney's Office to be a full participant in its implementation. The document requires that infraction cases/files (supplied by the City) "must be transmitted with a proposed written disposition and all discovery. Later acquired discovery should be promptly provided to all law clerks." This begins to answer the questions raised by the Council in August concerning who would be making decisions concerning possible jail diversion, restorative justice utilization, and community service uses. Homeless Action! is interested in knowing how the City Attorney's Office staff will become qualified and capable of supplying this information.
The document also explains that, while the first month of its execution would be at no cost to either party, that in the following month, the parties would determine the financial terms of the year long agreement. Failing this, the agreement would be terminated.
Homeless Action! believes that the MOU needs to include the partners identified by the City Attorney in her discussion with the Council in August. While we oppose the increased criminalization of our homeless residents, we do not believe that the proposed program can work without the full participation in the MOU development of the Public Defender, Probation, Homeless Court, and homeless service providers. We urge the Council to schedule an agenda item to discuss these issues with the City Attorney in order to develop an effective implementation of the Quality of Life Ordinances.
The Santa Rosa City Council is currently in the process of arming its police department with City codes carrying misdemeanor charges for what they define as "serious and repeated" Quality of Life criminal offenses. Obstruction, loitering, trespassing, and camping seem to be the key offenses, and Homeless Action! believes that criminalizing these behaviors when no housing is available constitutes violations of basic constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment.
Seeing no evidence presented by the City to support the Police Department's assertion that homeless were ignoring repeated infractions issued for the more serious of these offenses, Homeless Action! decided to investigate police records. We submitted a Public Records Act request on September 5th for the infractions issued for these offenses from January 1, 2016 to the present. Initially, the Department refused to provide us with the necessary records. Upon appeal contesting their legal authority to withhold the records, the Department sought a legal opinion. The City Attorney advised that compliance was necessary, and the records were supplied on November 28, 2017.
We have examined the database of infractions supplied us, and extracted 716 records which were given for obstruction, loitering, trespassing, and camping. We integrated those into our own database of California state misdemeanor charges issued by the Department for similar offenses (144 since Jul 15, 2017). We found 19 individuals who had been given 4 or more City infractions in the past nearly two years. We found seven individuals who had been given 2 or more state misdemeanors in the last five months. Only one person received both a City infraction and a state misdemeanor charge.
So these 26 people must constitute the "serious and repeated" offenders, upon which our department is seeking to charge the offenses as City Code violation misdemeanors. To be clear, they have not charged anyone in the City for these offenses as misdemeanors since the Council discussion in early August.
Our next step will be to research the disposition of these infractions and misdemeanors to determine if the charges were prosecuted, and what the court outcome was.
In parallel, we submitted a Public Records Act Request on November 9th for a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which the City Attorney told the Council at their August 9th meeting was being developed by her office for submission to the District Attorney to define the responsibilities of each in the process of implementing these new misdemeanor charges. The City supplied this document on December 1, 2017.
The document indicates that the District Attorney expects the City Attorney's Office to be a full participant in its implementation. The document requires that infraction cases/files (supplied by the City) "must be transmitted with a proposed written disposition and all discovery. Later acquired discovery should be promptly provided to all law clerks." This begins to answer the questions raised by the Council in August concerning who would be making decisions concerning possible jail diversion, restorative justice utilization, and community service uses. Homeless Action! is interested in knowing how the City Attorney's Office staff will become qualified and capable of supplying this information.
The document also explains that, while the first month of its execution would be at no cost to either party, that in the following month, the parties would determine the financial terms of the year long agreement. Failing this, the agreement would be terminated.
Homeless Action! believes that the MOU needs to include the partners identified by the City Attorney in her discussion with the Council in August. While we oppose the increased criminalization of our homeless residents, we do not believe that the proposed program can work without the full participation in the MOU development of the Public Defender, Probation, Homeless Court, and homeless service providers. We urge the Council to schedule an agenda item to discuss these issues with the City Attorney in order to develop an effective implementation of the Quality of Life Ordinances.
No comments:
Post a Comment