Ferguson Refuses To Make Police Reforms Proposed By The DOJ

[88m3]

Ferguson Refuses To Make Police Reforms Proposed By The DOJ

BY CARIMAH TOWNES FEB 10, 2016 11:39 AM

CREDIT: AP PHOTO/JEFF ROBERSON

Ferguson Mayor James Knowles III, who voted against the DOJ's consent decree on Tuesday

Eighteen months after Mike Brown was shot and killed, the Ferguson City Council unanimously voted against many of the Department of Justice’s proposed changes to the city’s unconstitutional law enforcement practices. The vote came after the release of four scathing reports about the city’s policing and court system, as well as months of negotiations about specific reforms.

On Tuesday night, the council conditionally approved the 131-page decree released last month, but rejected seven of its provisions. It denounced some of the salary and staffing requirements for police officers and jails, and asked for a $1 million cap on the amount of money the city has to pay federal monitors.

The council also pushed back on language that would apply the terms of the decree to any agency contracted by Ferguson to carry out its law enforcement activities. Executive Director Thomas Harvey of the ArchCity Defenders, an organization that provides criminal and civil legal services in St. Louis, told ThinkProgress this would effectively undermine the fundamental purpose of the reforms.

According to Harvey, there’s been discussion about passing Ferguson’s policing duties to the St. Louis County Police Department because those officers are better trained and paid to do the job. But removing the provision that an independent agency has to abide by the DOJ decree would allow St. Louis County officers to continue some of the unconstitutional practices that Ferguson has engaged in — such as making warrant-less arrests.

The consent decree bans “discrimination on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, immigrant status, disability, housing status, occupation, or limited English proficiency.” It prevents law enforcement from implementing any revenue generating scheme. It requires officers to undergo extensive training and keep thorough records of all traffic stops, arrests. And it establishes guidelines for using force.

“If you think about what the Department of Justice is asking them to do, it’s really embarrassing that there would be any hesitation. It’s embarrassing [that] they had to spend this much time talking about this,” he said. “At it’s core, they’re saying ‘Don’t target poor people and black people for arrest, in order to raise revenue. And when poor people are jailed, don’t extort money from them.’ These are some of the most fundamental legal principles in our county, and we spend nearly a year arguing about that.”

“I think that the consent decree is as good as it’s going to get for Ferguson,” Harvey added.

Vanita Gupta, the leader of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Department, responded swiftly to the council vote.

“Both parties engaged in thoughtful negotiations over many months to create an agreement with cost-effective remedies that would ensure Ferguson brings policing and court practices in line with the Constitution,” she said. “The agreement already negotiated by the department and the city will provide Ferguson residents a police department and municipal court that fully respects civil rights and operates free from racial discrimination.”

By failing to accept some of the terms of the decree, Ferguson may now be slapped with a federal lawsuit.

Ferguson Refuses To Make Police Reforms Proposed By The DOJ

 

[hashmander]

who people elect locally matters. the young and minorities need to wake the fukk up and i'll say it over and over and over: LOW TURNOUT ELECTIONS MATTER MORE THAN YOU KNOW. if you don't know who your local representatives are but are bytching about the president then you are a part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[Regular_P]

Shameful.

 

[88m3]

The Justice Department Sues Ferguson to Enforce Reforms
“There is no price when it comes to constitutional policing,” says Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

• KRISTON CAPPS
  
• @kristoncapps
  
• 6:32 PM ET
• Comments

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announces a federal lawsuit against Ferguson, Missouri.(Carolyn Kaster/AP)
This time last year, the U.S. Department of Justice handed down a damning report on the state of law enforcement in Ferguson, Missouri. The reforms called for by the federal investigation into the 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown, and the subsequent discovery of excessive policing and an unfair system of court fees and traffic fines, amounted to a top-to-bottom recommended rewrite of how the city polices its residents and funds its operations.

City and federal officials then spent 26 weeks negotiating what reform for Ferguson would look like. But instead of taking up the negotiated settlement, Ferguson balked. TheSt. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the Ferguson City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to reject a court-enforceable consent decree with the Obama administration. Today, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that the Justice Department will file a federal suit against Ferguson.

The road to reform was always going to be a long haul for the city. Twelve of the 13 recommendations for Ferguson authorities involved fairly drastic revisions to the city’s practice of justice, including reforms of trial procedures to ensure due process and a broad-based reduction of fines and fees. The 13th recommendation went beyond the purview of local leaders: Cooperate with the more than 90 municipalities that make up St. Louis County to bring meaningful reform to the metro area.

The resulting consent decree would cost Ferguson between $2.1 million and $3.7 million to implement in its first year, according to the Justice Department. In rejecting the agreement, the Ferguson City Council argued that it would cost even more—and that the city would face bankruptcy as a result.

At root in the city’s 6-0 vote rejecting the consent decree were objections to two primary provisions. One would mandate that police salaries be among the top 25 percent for similarly sized cities around the country, meaning huge raises for the city’s more than 50 officers. City leaders argued these raises would trigger unsustainable pay hikes for other government employees.

The other, perhaps more relevant provision, would require Ferguson to abide by the agreement even if the city dissolved the Ferguson Police Department. Ferguson City Council member Wesley Bell told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that the city would not be able to field another law-enforcement agency if the consent decree were entailed, given the steep reforms and strict oversight of the agreement.

“If we get to the point where we have to disband our police department, which honestly I don’t see happening, but let’s say it does happen, no department is going to take us on with those conditions without charging twice as much,” Council member Bell said.

Attorney General Lynch addressed the Ferguson City Council’s complaint during a press conference Wednesday. “Our view is the city of Ferguson deserves constitutional policing, no matter who is in charge of the city’s police force,” she said. By striking this provision, Ferguson would be able to “avoid and evade” any efforts at reform of its policing.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit contends that the city’s law enforcement violates residents’ First, Fourth, and 14th Amendment rights, in addition to various federal Civil Rights laws.

According to The New York Times, residents in Ferguson approved the consent decree in public comments, even if it meant tax increases in order to pay for the high costs. But the scope of reform may in fact be impossible for Ferguson to implement—as they appeared to be from the very beginning—without going bankrupt. While the city’s residents favor compliance with the Justice Department’s demands, and may even be willing to stomach a tax increase to do what the city needs to do, Ferguson remains a small city of 21,000 residents working (at a deficit) on a $14.5 million annual budget. Building an efficient, fair, and non-biased justice system could reasonably lead to the city’s dissolution.


The Department of Justice Is Asking Ferguson to Do the Impossible
Ferguson needs to drastically revise its court system. But how is a city supported by predatory court fees supposed to fund reform?

During her press conference, Attorney General Loretta Lynch seemed to allow for that possibility. “As always, we are always cost sensitive when we deal with municipalities,” she said. “However, there is no price when it comes to constitutional policing.”

It’s unclear why the Ferguson City Council decided that a federal lawsuit is preferable to compliance, or how it moves the city closer toward long-term viability. Perhaps the city was hoping to push the Justice Department to accede to accommodations beyond those reached by negotiators. If so, that strategy failed.

The answer may well be that Ferguson isnot viable in the long term, no matter what decisions its leaders make. Bankruptcy is not a certain outcome, but it’s a plausible one. The scope of the problems facing the cities that make up St. Louis County—from Ferguson to Florissant to Bel-Ridge and dozens of other communities that all face the same dismal long-term outlook—are beyond the means of any one of them to solve on its own.

Which is why municipal consolidation still looks like the only real answer for Ferguson (and Florissant, and Bel-Ridge, and so on). But neither the Justice Department nor the Ferguson City Council can bring that solution. For now, the future of Ferguson is headed, unhappily, to the courts.


The Justice Department vs. Ferguson

 

[88m3]

The details in the US Justice Department's lawsuit against Ferguson are harrowing
damning

 

[Strapped]

does money/venue talk

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Deafening silence to this thread.

 

[MostReal]

Man this is pathetic

 

[Jhoon]

does money/venue talk

That's the problem. People want to live in a modern world but pay taxes with bartering. Why wouldn't the city vote against their recommendations? The city should be bankrupted.

 

[smitty22]

When the cameras go away business as usual. Mayor on Camera we will enact whatever the doj recommends. Off camera votes that shyt down.

 

[Strapped]

Prey on the poor

 

[tmonster]

Game on
-DOJ