Item 4: Ordinance Concerning Downtown Public Safety Zone

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

I want to be clear: the ACLU believes that we can have exclusion orders that uphold these due process principles. Instead of an ordinance, we can use the current judicial system. Under our system, if a person is suspected of one of the crimes included in the exclusion ordinance, they can be arrested or cited and then must appear before a judge. At that time, if the person is going to remain or be released from custody before going to trial, the District Attorney can request the judge to issue an exclusion order as part of the release conditions. And if the person pleads guilty or goes to trial and is found guilty then at the time of sentencing, the judge can order the person excluded as part of the sentence. The current exclusion program also circumvents due process by allowing exclusion based solely on a preponderance of evidence in a civil process that does not require an attorney be provided for those who cannot afford one. In spite of the efforts by our municipal court judges to provide a fair process they cannot represent or advise the people who come before them. Without access to a lawyer, many people do not fully understand how quickly they need to act, and what they must do to protect their rights to challenge an exclusion order. Many of the people who receive these orders might not be as well equipped as all of us to understand what the exclusion order says, what it means and how to access and understand the system to defend themselves. Some have little or no education, some have serious disabilities or mental health hurdles that have nothing to do with any criminal activity. In fact at least one of our municipal court judges has stated she avoids imposing exclusion on those with mental health issues because they cannot fully understand the sanction or its implications. Lastly there is no way to track how many people were cited in error and chose not to challenge their exclusion either because they didn’t understand the process or believed they had no chance of being given a fair hearing in court. This is another link in the chain of due process that is severed when we allow the use of this kind of street level justice where an officer can cite someone and essentially sanction them before they have had their day in court. It may be that a majority of Eugene residents are content to allow this program to continue given the support it has received from downtown businesses. But the fact that it popular does not make it right. The ACLU will continue to oppose this exclusion program and others like it on the principle that a free society does not banish people from the public square without due process of law. The downtown public safety zone does not provide adequate due process and should be abandoned. 2. Email received to alert commission of future correspondence to be received: From: Connie Bennett [mailto:connie@silvamgmt.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:33 AM To: ZIMMER Randi M Subject: testimony for DPSZ I am looking for an address that our downtown building owners and tenants can use to send written support for the DPSZ. I realize the public forum is tonight and have given building owners and tenants notice, but also wanted to provide them with a way that they could send written support for the ordinance. Thank you for your assistance. Connie Bennett, Property Manager