Item C: Downtown Public Safety Zone Ordinance

Home Browse Search

Long-term, disorder-related issues downtown have been addressed for more than 20 years through special committees, task forces, Council Goals, City projects, private businesses, etc. Most recently the Downtown Safety Task Team prepared a list of recommendations they believed would improve downtown safety and make the downtown a more welcoming place. Inherent in their recommendations was the understanding that the lack of jail beds as a sanction remains a critical component to the persistent problems occurring downtown. The civil exclusion process provides a tool to offset the lack of jail sanctions and is a component in law enforcement and our community partner’s efforts to improve downtown Eugene’s disorder-related issues. Public Comments and Police Commission Recommendation At the Police Commission’s Public Forum on September 1, and the City Council’s public hearing on July 29, 2010, speakers expressed both support and opposition to the use of a civil exclusion process. Those in favor primarily spoke of the need to make downtown safer, removing predators from the city’s core and their view that the DPSZ was improving conditions downtown. The majority of those opposed spoke against all exclusionary zones, protection of First Amendment rights and fear that homeless individuals and youth may be unfairly targeted for exclusion. The Police Commission summarized the concerns they heard from the Public Forum and their reactions to the Downtown Public Safety Zone Activity Report in their October 8, 2010, memorandum to the City Council. Their recommendation to the council stated: “Recommend to the Council continued enforcement of the Downtown Public Safety Zone Ordinance 20419, and that Council work with City departments and community members and stakeholders that may or may not include Police Commission and Human Rights Commission members, to resolve outstanding issues in the ordinance.” The Police Commission went on to say in their memorandum: “….However, as stated in the recommendation, there are still some outstanding issues in the ordinance for the council to resolve. Sexual offenses were not included in the original ordinance and were considered a significant category of offenses that should be included. There was great concern from members of the commission and the public about sexual predators, however, no predatory behavior is on the exclusion list. Several people stated offenses like statutory rape and sex abuse that occur in the zone should be added to the ordinance. Some additional municipal codes should also be added to tie to State statutes, especially for sexual assault. “A second key issue is the disagreement over due process protections for individuals. Some people believe the ordinance circumvents due process by allowing officers to issue exclusion citations based solely on preponderance of evidence, and without requiring an attorney be provided for those who cannot afford one. This combines two issues, the authority of police officers and providing representation for individuals in a civil matter. These speakers discussed a chain of due process that is severed if an officer can sanction someone before they have their day in court before a judge (exclusion prior to conviction). In contrast, officers and other people stated that attention was focused in the design of this ordinance to provide due process protections and that it is a judge making the decision to exclude someone, not the officer. There appears to be confusion about how the ordinance works and this should be clearer before the council makes a determination on the future of the ordinance. A discussion of options to possibly mitigate aspects of the due process concerns should be explored with the Police Department and Municipal Court as part of a decision regarding the future of the DPSZ. Z:\CMO\2010 Council Agendas\M101025\S101025C.doc