Item 3A: Approval of City Council Minutes

Home Browse Search

Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Bettman, moved to add a new Subsec- tion F to Section 4.875 that would require the officer to inform the cited or arrested person that they have the right to counsel and that if they cannot afford counsel at the hearing one will be provided. Councilor Zelenka said his motion would add due process by providing counsel to people who could not afford it when they went before a judge. He said that was a basic tenet of the judicial system. Councilor Clark asked if Councilor Zelenka’s motion would add time to the process. He said the hearing before the judge would be held within three to five days of the citation and he was not opposed to having the citing officer inform the person that they had that right, but was concerned that having the judge do so would automatically result in a continuance and he was opposed to that. Councilor Zelenka said the motion would apply at the time the officer issued a citation. Mr. Lidz said because it was not a criminal proceeding, it was not a constitutional requirement that someone be provided with appointed counsel; the issue was primarily one of resources. Councilor Solomon objected to the suggestion that people’s rights were being taken away and they were not being given what they were entitled to. She asked City Prosecutor Dan Barkovic to comment on the implications of the amendment. Mr. Barkovic said it would be extremely costly to provide at public expense a court-appointed attorney for a civil proceeding. He felt it would be a huge expense for the Municipal Court to add that to the pre-conviction exclusion. Councilor Bettman said she would make an exception and support the amendment because it restored some of the civil rights and due process citizens were afforded under the Constitution. In response to a question from Councilor Ortiz, Chief Lehner said that the Miranda warning was given in cases of a custodial arrest where a statement that was potentially self-incriminating would be taken. Councilor Clark said he was concerned with the potential fiscal impact of the amendment on the City and while he supported due process as a part of constitutional rights, he likened the exclusionary zone to a stalking or restraining order that were civil proceedings intended to separate people to prevent problems and did not include appointment of counsel. Councilor Zelenka said he was troubled that someone’s rights could be taken away without affording them the knowledge that they had a right to counsel and the City would pay for that counsel. He did not feel the cost would be as great as predicted, but that should not be a factor in the council’s decision. He clarified that the City would pay for an attorney only if the person could not afford one. Councilor Taylor said she would also make an exception and support the amendment as it appeared that the ordinance would pass and the amendment would make it less unfair. She asked if it meant the person being arrested or cited would have to be informed of their right to an attorney and that the City would pay if they person could not afford one. Mr. Lidz said that was his understanding of Councilor Zelenka’s motion. Councilor Poling agreed with Councilor Clark that the proceeding was similar to a show cause hearing for a restraining or stalking order and there was no constitutional right to have an attorney appointed in a civil proceeding. He could not support the amendment. Councilor Bettman stated that a stalking order did not apply to an entire area; it only applied to a person. She said the issue of no constitutional right to an attorney at a civil proceeding begged the question because a person could be punished at the civil proceeding before they had their day in court, where they did have a