Item C: Update on Downtown Public Safety Zone

Home Browse Search

Eugene Downtown Public Safety Zone Data: January 2012 through July 14, 2012 Information about Disposition Total number of notices issued: 39 Number of hearings yet to occur (disposition currently unknown) 5 Number of notices where disposition is known 34 Known Disposition – Number of notices withdrawn or never filed by EPD: 5 (15%) Known Disposition - Number of notices dismissed: 7 (21%) Known Disposition - Number of 90-day exclusions imposed: 17 (50%) Known Disposition - Number of one-year exclusions imposed: 5 (15%) Information about Hearings and Advocacy Number of hearings requested: 21 Number of those who request a hearing who appear for hearing: 6 (29%) Number of requests to meet advocate: 0 Information about People Receiving Notices Number of people issued exclusion notices: 33 Number who report no address: 21 (64%) Race (self-reported or officer-identified) - Caucasian: 30 (91%) Average number of police contacts per person: 42 (range: 4-238) Number who have violated DPSZ order: 6 During this period, there were seven dismissals. Additionally, there were five notices that were withdrawn at the request of the Police Department, because upon review the cases were deemed inconsistent with the new guidelines released by Operations Command (attached). Of the notices dismissed, four were dismissed due to judicial discretion, and two were dismissed because the underlying charge was not eligible for the noticed exclusion, and one was dismissed because the underlying charge was not prosecuted due to a lack of resources. One of the significant concerns raised in February involved the perception that there is insufficient due process for people receiving a 90-day exclusion. Currently, upon receiving a “notice to show cause” which explains the potential of being excluded from the Downtown Public Safety Zone, a person is given court appearance date and time within three to five business days. This serves as their first opportunity of due process. However, only 19 percent of the people cited take advantage of this opportunity by requesting a hearing and appearing at the hearing. The others (81 percent) either do not request a hearing, or fail to appear for the hearing. This most often results in the exclusion being upheld by the judge after reviewing the reports, records, and other information. The result of this is that many individuals are excluded without taking advantage of the first opportunity for due process. Another criticism of the 90-day exclusion is that it is issued as the result of an underlying charge, which is not adjudicated when the 90-day exclusion is imposed. To address these concerns, staff is developing an alternative for council consideration to eliminate the 90-day exclusion; while this tool has helped to reduce repeat offenses by excluded persons in the downtown core, it has also resulted in numerous complaints. At the July 25 work session, staff is requesting additional guidance about the City Council’s preferred options, and any additional data and analysis the council would seek, to prepare for the September 10 work session when this topic is tentatively scheduled to be discussed again. Several options are listed S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120725\S120725C.doc