CC Minutes - 02/27/12 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

zone expired was changed to September 30, 2012. Councilors Brown and Farr accepted that as a friendly amendment to the motion. It was Councilor Ortiz's perception that the DPSZ was being used punitively against people protesting downtown and she was very concerned about that. She believed that protesters were being targeted and that was not what the zone was intended for. It was intended to address exploitative and violent crimes. Councilor Brown said the amendment might persuade him to support the motion and a short extension. He believed the DPSZ was unconstitutional and had not been challenged because those sanctioned were poor and could not afford an attorney. He said the zone struck at the heart of the country's judicial system, which, unlike other countries, presumed innocence. The DPSZ presumed guilt. He did not believe anyone had the legal right to anyone from a public space without a trial and conviction. Councilor Brown did not think the data provided by EPD demonstrated downtown was safer or more welcoming. He suggested the existing system was the alternative. He added that he was not saying that exclusion orders were always unwarranted because there were people who should be excluded from downtown, but he considered the DPSZ an unnecessary overlay to the judicial system. City Manager Ruiz raised logistical concerns about the September 2012 date. Councilor Farr sought to withdraw his acceptance of the friendly amendment. City Attorney Jerome suggested that instead Councilor Farr ask Councilor Ortiz to change the date. Councilor Ortiz declined to accept a date change to April 30, 2014. City Attorney Jerome advised the council that the motion with the friendly amendment offered by Councilor Ortiz was the motion on the table. Councilor Clark believed the City could refine the DPSZ in a manner that addressed many of the concerns that had been raised. He was willing to continue to work on the issue. He reminded the council that the DPSZ was not put in place because of a lack of downtown police officers, but because of a lack of jail beds to hold offenders accountable. The community was already deficient in jail beds and would soon lose more. He believed it was the wrong time to eliminate the zone. He wanted to extend the zone while the City worked to refine it. Responding to a question from Councilor Zelenka, Chief Kerns said the Municipal Court informed him that those jailed for municipal offenses such as violation of an exclusion order were held until arraigned, which was the next business day; following that, the judge had an opportunity to sentence the offender. He anticipated the loss of ten beds as of July 1, 2012, could affect the City's ability to hold offenders until arraignment. He said it was a deterrent to be able to hold someone in jail. Councilor Zelenka said he had not supported the DPSZ for reasons related to due process. He disagreed with Councilor Poling's analogy likening the zone to a restraining order because he believed restraining orders were only issued when someone was in imminent danger. He asked for more information about how staff proposed to enhance the advocacy program and what timeline was involved. City Prosecutor Dan Barkovic reported that judges were now proactive about letting defendants, particularly those in custody, know of the program's availability; prior to that, officers handed out fliers about the program. In addition, the flier was being revised to be more simple and clear. He anticipated the flier would be revised within the month. He invited suggestions about additional resources to employ in the advocacy program. Mayor Piercy said had been convinced by legal counsel that the ordinance would probably withstand a legal challenge but she believed the issue to consider was what the community was and what it aspired to MINUTES— Eugene City Council February 27, 2012 Page 6 Regular Meeting