In response to Cam Gordon's reasons of why he supports repealing the lurking law, I would like to counter with these points. The first thing to remember is that the charge is not "lurking" but "lurking with intent to commit a crime" and that police must identify a specific crime that they believe the person was preparing to commit. Police cannot merely say that a person looked suspicious and was, therefore, probably going to commit some type of crime. Nor can police sustain a charge of lurking without evidence to prove a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This invariably removes the risk to people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Typically, it is necessary to produce evidence that a charged person was committing some overt act to connect them with the underlying crime. - Charges like lurking are dismissed for many different reasons. While lack of probable cause is one reason, perhaps a more common reason is that the suspect pled guilty to another charge - either from that particular offense or another offense - in exchange for the dismissal of the lurking charge. Therefore, when a lurking charge is dismissed it does not follow that it was necessarily dismissed for lack of probable cause. In other words, a dismissal does not necessarily mean that the person was not lurking, or even that the city could not have proven the lurking charge in court. - People charged with lurking may be cited rather than arrested. If so, they are not generally booked into jail, and the costs of a jail booking are not necessarily imposed. - It is sometimes difficult to pigeon hole the actions of a suspect stopped for lurking into a different category of criminal behavior. To take the example of a person wandering through a private yard, in most situations such a person may not be charged with neither trespass nor loitering. Trespass generally requires a demand to depart while loitering applies narrowly to prostitution and narcotics activities occurring in public places. Furthermore, charging "attempt" requires “a substantial step toward, and more than preparation for, the commission of the crime". Therefore, attempt is frequently not a viable alternative to lurking. - Lurking may be the basis for a stop but not the ultimate reason for a citation or arrest. This is because in some cases a reasonable suspicion may exist to support a temporary detention for lurking with intent to commit a crime but not for any other crime. Sometimes officers might stop a person for lurking and obtain evidence in the course of the stop to cite or arrest the person for a different offense. Such cases highlight one reason why the lurking ordinance can be an important tool even when it is not ultimately charged. - According to data from the City Attorney's Office, the conviction rate for lurking in 2007 was 25% (by contrast, the conviction rate for loitering was 32%). For the first quarter of 2008, the conviction rate for lurking was 35% (by contrast, the conviction rate for loitering was 33%). It is correct to note that lurking charges may often be dismissed in exchange to a plea to a different case or charge. More important than the conviction rate, however, is whether the lurking law aids public safety. We believe that the law is helpful because it provides for preventive policing. Many people would rather that a criminal be stopped before committing a crime than after he or she has done so. - Because lurking is a misdemeanor, and offenders are given citations (or "tickets") for most misdemeanors, enforcing the lurking ordinance is relatively inexpensive. When offenders are cited as opposed to arrested, there is no associated booking fee. In 2007, the City Attorney's Office handled 130 lurking cases (less than 1% of the total office caseload). Given that arrests usually are not made, and that the total number of cases is relatively low, this is not an unduly expensive ordinance. It is not at all clear how the figure of $184,000 for "processing citations" was derived, and given how lurking citations are handled, it seems much exaggerated. - When people say it is unfair that people cannot get jobs or housing as a result of these records, consider these four points: 1) This result typically pertains to those people convicted and not to those whose charges have been dismissed; 2) Many people do not see the government's role to be that of conspiring with defendants to conceal their arrests, charges and convictions from landlords or employers. Landlords and employers have a right to know this public information and decide for themselves how much weight to attach to an arrest record or charge that did not result in a conviction; 3) The argument that "this law is unfair because it creates records that hurt people" argument is not unique to lurking and could be made about any type of charge; 4) a great many of the people arrested, charged, and/or convicted of lurking have already been arrested, charged and/or convicted of many other offenses, and it is wrong to presume that they would have obtained employment or housing but for a lurking arrest, charge or conviction. It is also important to note that even people who are convicted may after a time petition the court to expunge (erase) the judicial records (the records of their charge and conviction). These requests are granted fairly liberally. Also generally, people whose cases are dismissed may petition for all the records to be expunged (i.e. the judicial records of the charge and conviction and the police records of the arrest). - Just because Minneapolis is one of only 13 major cities that have this law, does not make it bad. In fact, we may be considered a trend setter when it comes to this law. I believe this information alone provides enough credibility to the Lurking Law that it should remain on the books for the police to use when needed. And one final point, why should I doubt the Minneapolis police when they tell me it’s an important tool for them. I would never tell my plumber he needs to fix my leak, but then steal the special tool he needs to do the job. A specialty tool is a specialty tool…it’s there for the rare instances when no other tool will do. The City Council votes on this Friday the 20th. If you support keeping the Lurking Law in place, please contact all of the council with your objections. It can be as simple as this: Dear Council Member, As a resident of Minneapolis I do not support taking crime fighting tools away from our police force, and I strongly object to repealing the Lurking Ordinance, and I ask that you do not support this proposal. Thank you. Paul Ostrow Diane Hofstede Barbara Johnson Don Samuels Robert Lilligren Lisa Goodman Elizabeth Glidden Ralph Remington Scott Benson Sandra Colvin Roy Betsy Hodges Cam Gordon Gary Schiff |
|||
Post new comment