Item 2: Ordinance on Downtown Public Safety Zone

Home Browse Search

Eugene Downtown Public Safety Zone Data January 2012 through August 15, 2012 Information about Disposition Total number of notices issued: 48 Number of notices withdrawn or never filed by EPD: 5 Number of notices dismissed: 15 Number of 90 day exclusions imposed: 22 Number of one year exclusions imposed: 6 Information about Hearings & Advocacy Number of hearings requested: 9 Number of those who request a hearing who appear for hearing: 7 Number of requests to meet advocate: 1 Information about People Receiving Notices Number of people issued notices to appear: 42 Number who report no address: 25 Race (self-reported or officer-identified) - Caucasian: 37 Average number of police contacts per person: 63 Number who have violated DPSZ order: 11 During this period, there were 15 dismissals. Additionally, there were five notices that were withdrawn or never filed at the request of the Police Department, because upon review the cases were deemed inconsistent with the new guidelines released by Operations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, five were dismissed due to judicial discretion, four were dismissed because the underlying charge was not eligible for the noticed exclusion, two were dismissed because the defendant was sentenced to prison and four were dismissed because the appropriate paperwork was not received in a timely manner by the Municipal Court. 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 13 percent of the people cited take advantage of this opportunity by requesting a hearing and appearing at the hearing. The others either do not request a hearing, or fail to appear for the hearing that has been requested. This frequently results in the exclusion being upheld by the judge after review of the reports. 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. Another concern raised by the City Council is the low use of the advocacy program, established to help defendants who have received a notice to appear. A work session was held on September 10. The council discussed several options, which are outlined below. Councilor Taylor asked about the number of notices issued involving marijuana violations. Of the 48 notices issued, 18 exclusively involved marijuana offenses. Of those, eight of the 18 were felony S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120917\S1209172.doc