HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Discussion on Downtown Public Safety Zone
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Discussion Concerning Downtown Public Safety Zone
Meeting Date: September 10, 2012 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Eugene Police Staff Contact: Pete Kerns, Chief of Police
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5102
ISSUE STATEMENT
This is an opportunity for the City Council to discuss options for the Downtown Public Safety Zone,
which is scheduled to sunset November 30, 2012.
BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted the Downtown Public Safety Zone (DPSZ) Ordinance No. 20419 in August
2008. Most recently, the City Council extended the ordinance until November 30, 2012. This
discussion is intended to provide an opportunity to update the City Council on the status of the use of the
tool since the last City Council report in February, to outline possible options moving forward, and to
ascertain how the council wishes to proceed.
In December 2009, the Downtown Safety Task Team prepared a list of recommendations they believed
would improve downtown safety and make the downtown a more welcoming place. Subsequently, the
12-Point Downtown Safety Improvement Plan was adopted by the City Council in January 2010.
Inherent in the recommendation was the understanding that the lack of jail beds as a sanction remains a
critical component to the persistent problems occurring downtown. The civil exclusion process is a tool
to offset the lack of jail sanctions, to create an alternative to incarceration for chronic violators, and to
improve the safety in the downtown core.
As long as there is inadequate jail bed capacity to meet the demand, the Downtown Public Safety Zone
has functioned as a stop-gap measure, to hold offenders accountable, and reduce the number of re-
offenders in the downtown core. Other services to support individuals in crisis like CAHOOTS, youth
services are also critical to improving safety downtown.
Data Available
Since the last City Council discussion about the Downtown Public Safety Zone, staff has implemented
several measures to improve timely and thorough access to data for all new cases since March.
Additionally, staff is working backwards to hand-tabulate this information prior to March 2012.
Currently, this additional data is available for all cases from January 2012 through August 15, 2012.
S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120910\S120910B.doc
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 and 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 (Attachment A). 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 for 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 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.
A second 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. Providing court-appointed attorneys for eligible
defendants who receive notices to appear would be expected to increase the advocacy provided to
defendants. The Eugene Police Department (EPD) issues approximately 15,000 citations annually.
Providing court-appointed attorneys to the estimated 100 recipients of exclusion notices who would be
eligible and request an attorney would cost approximately $15,000 per year. This would increase the
perception of due process.
At the September 10 work session, staff is requesting additional guidance about the City Council’s
preferred options. Four options are outlined in this summary. A public hearing on this topic is
tentatively scheduled for September 17.
RELATED CITY POLICIES
This topic relates to the Safe Community Vision: A community where people feel safe, valued and
welcome, and increased downtown development, as well as support for small and local businesses.
COUNCIL OPTIONS
There are several options the council may pursue. Outlined below are four options:
1.Extend the existing Downtown Public Safety Zone until __________.
2.Eliminate the 90-day exclusion. This would leave the one-year exclusion, which is instituted
upon conviction of the underlying charge.
3.Allow the Downtown Public Safety Zone to sunset effective November 30, 2012.
4.Provide court-appointed attorneys for all people receiving a downtown public safety zone notice
to appear.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends the following changes to the current legislation:
a.Extend the program for two years by extending the sunset date from November 30, 2012, to
November 30, 2014.
b.Retain the 90-day exclusion process
c.Provide court-appointed attorneys for eligible defendants
SUGGESTED MOTION
No motion is proposed for the work session.
ATTACHMENTS
A.Guidelines for Use of Downtown Public Safety Zone
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Lieutenant Sam Kamkar
Telephone: 541-682-5436
Staff E-Mail: sam.s.kamkar@ci.eugene.or.us
S:\CMO\2012 Council Agendas\M120910\S120910B.doc
ATTACHMENT A
Guidelines distributed to Eugene Police Officers
Subject: Guidelines for Application of the Downtown Public Safety
Zone Exclusions
MISSION/PURPOSE
The purpose of the Downtown Public Safety Zone (DPSZ) and our application of the ordinance is to
reduce crime and disorder, and the fear of crime downtown by excluding those individuals who engage
in repeated and/or serious criminal behaviors in downtown.
CONDITIONS IN WHICH OFFICERS SHOULD CONSIDER THE DPSZ EXCLUSION
1) Persons who engage in repeated criminal behavior in the DPSZ area.
2) Persons with extensive and/or serious criminal histories unrelated to downtown, but who commit a
serious or felony crime in the DPSZ area.
3) Persons who may not have any criminal history, but who engage in serious criminal acts such as; UDCS,
Felony Assault, Rape, etc.
REPORT WRITING
Officers should review the ordinance prior to requesting a DPSZ exclusion. Any time a DPSZ exclusion
must
is requested or recommended, the officer include a preamble under the AI/ marginal heading. The
preamble should include all pertinent facts as to why the requested exclusion is appropriate such as;
1) Type of crime.
2) Criminal history of the suspect (both inside and out of the DPSZ).
3) Special location or problems (chronic drug use in the parks, City sponsored event, or near a public
school).
4) Gang affiliation.
5) Drug/alcohol abuse or mental health history.
6) Special status of victim or witness’ (age or disability).
7) Special knowledge of suspect (threats to LE, sex offender, etc.)
8)
Anything else that will aid the court in its decision