Item A: Downtown Public Safety Zone

Home Browse Search

ATTACHMENT B - Public Comments Received ACLU of Oregon Public Comment re: Downtown Public Safety Zone Submitted to City of Eugene Police Commission December 14, 2011 The ACLU of Oregon has opposed the Downtown Public Safety Zone ordinance since it was first introduced to the city council for consideration in 2008. It is our position that the program authorized by this ordinance undermines the right to due process of law. Even with the minor changes made during the last renewal, the program is flawed and should be ended. Excluding a person from our public places and curtailing their right to access parts of our community is a serious sanction that should not be imposed without full due process of law. This means that a person has a clear understand of the charges against them, the sanction they face, the right to counsel, the right to a judge or jury, a judicial hearing and judicial oversight. The program currently in place circumvents these processes by creating a separate civil procedure by which someone can be excluded; a process that affords defendants fewer protections than they would have in a criminal proceeding. There is no requirement that the court provide defendants with an attorney if they cannot afford their own. In addition the threshold for finding guilt is much lower requiring only that there be a preponderance of evidence that a person is guilty, not that it be beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet these hearings may result in the defendant being banned from downtown and denied a basic civil right to travel freely in public places. 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 able 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. The fact that a person receives a citation for an offense and an additional citation under the ordinance creates confusion for defendants. It is reasonable to assume that some number of those cited simply chose to leave downtown rather than appear in court believing that they have been already banned or that they have no hope for a fair hearing. Some of these people might have prevailed in having their exclusion dismissed. The recent report provided by the Police Commission on the public safety zone does not provide a compelling case for the effectiveness of the zone. The data offered does not provide insight into which offenses resulted in exclusion citations nor does it reveal that exclusion citations led to a decrease in criminal or nuisance activity in the zone. What the data does reveal is that almost one quarter (23.5%) of all 90-day exclusion citations that went before a judge were dismissed or denied. This is a significant number that should raise concern about the manner in which the program is being administered by police. It Attachment B - Page 10