Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08011995 - D4 ,r r D.4 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on August 1, 1995 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Smith, DeSaulnier Torlakson and Bishop NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ SUBJECT: Introduction of an Anti-Drug Loitering Ordinance The Board of Supervisors heard testimony from the following persons regarding the proposed Anti-Drug Loitering Ordinance: Oscar Bobrow, Contra Costa Human Relations Commission, Richmond; Ryan Klobas, Richmond; Maxon Powell, Park Plaza Neighborhood Council, Richmond; Jeanene V. Ferguson, Contra Costa Human Relations Commission, Rodeo; and Sherri Anderson, Discovery Bay. After hearing the testimony, Supervisor Rogers moved to close the public hearing and continue the Board of Supervisors' decision until Tuesday, August 8, 1995, in order that Sheriff Rupf would have an opportunity to address the Board regarding his position on the proposed Anti-Loitering Ordinance. Supervisor DeSaulnier seconded the motion and requested that a representative from the Deputy Sheriff's Association also state their position on the proposed ordinance for Board consideration. Supervisor DeSaulnier's addition to the motion was acceptable to Supervisor Rogers. IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the public hearing on the Anti-Drug Loitering Ordinance is CLOSED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE BOARD that consideration of the Anti-Loitering Ordinance is DEFERRED until the August 8, 1995, Board of Supervisors meeting at which time the County Sheriff and a representative of the Deputy Sheriff's Association are REQUESTED to give testimony regarding their respective positions on the proposed Anti-Drug Loitering Ordinance. cc: County Administrator ihereby certitythat this isatrue and correcteopyof County Counsel an action taken end entered on the minutes of the Y Board of Supeon the d to shown. County Sheriff-Coroner ATTESTED: Deputy Sheriff's Association p iso e d count- mini, ator OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF r Contra Costa County Administration Division 646-2402 Date: July 24, 1995 To: Claude L. Van Marter, Assistant County Administrator From: W 9Qqj�� Subject: Introduction of an Anti-Drug Loitering Ordinance If the proposed Ordinance is adopted by the Board of Supervisors, it is the intent of this Office to conduct appropriate training for designated personnel prior to implementation. The training is to be provided by a representative of the Office of the District Attorney. In a letter from District Attorney Gary T. Yancey to Mr. Claude Van Marter, May 22, 1995, Mr. Yancey indicated that the criteria for arrest pursuant to this ordinance, to a great extent, duplicate cirteria which have been recognized over the years by California courts as factors which will support detention and arrest for other charges. Further, that Sheriffs Office personnel charged with enforcement of this ordinance be given specific training. Personnel identified to receive initial training are those deputies assigned to the Sheriffs Office Special Enforcement Unit(J Team);deputies assigned to the Housing Authority(Project Pride); and deputies assigned to the Resident Deputy Program (North Richmond; Bay Point; and Oakley). Training by the District Attorney's Office will be provided to the Field Supervisors assigned to the Patrol Division during regularly scheduled quarterly training in September. Naturally we will absorb training costs for our personnel. In addition to training our officers I have previously and often mentioned the importance of public education. This Department and our citizens need to be informed and with a dedicated budget we could create literature and conduct public meetings to promote a public spirit of understanding and support. . WER:mjf , r July 27, 1995 MEMBERS, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Item D-4, the anti-drug loitering ordinance is again before the Board of Supervisors for adoption. As you will recall, the Board of Supervisors introduced the Ordinance on June 13, 1995, but delayed consideration of the adoption of the Ordinance until August 1 , 1995 in order to give the Human Relations Commission time to conduct community forums on the Ordinance. Attached is the package of materials, including the report which the Internal Operations Committee made to the Board of Supervisors on June 13, 1995 and related correspondence. We understand that the Human Relations Commission will provide an oral report to the Board on Tuesday in response to Recommendation # 2 in the attached Committee report. In addition, we have asked the Sheriff to make an orW report to the Board on the training he anticipates providing to his deputies, consistent with Recommendation # 4 in the attached Committee report. Claude L. Van M'arter Assistant County Administrator TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 1.0.-2 Contra FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Costa;,. L r tia DATE: June 5, 1995 Countyr, �w SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ANTI-DRUG LOITERING ORDINANCE SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION($)d BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. INTRODUCE, WAIVE READING and FIX Tuesday, August 1, 1995 at 10:00 A.M. as the time to consider adoption of an Ordinance which would permit law enforcement officers in the unincorporated areas of the County to stop and question individuals who are loitering and who appear to 'be selling drugs. 2.. AUTHORIZE the Human Relations Commission to conduct public meetings in areas of the County most likely to be impacted by the proposed Ordinance. in order to seek public input on the Ordinance and DIRECT the Human Relations Commission to report to the Board of Supervisors on August 1, 1995 at 10:00 A.M. on their findings and recommendations regarding the adoption of the Ordinance. 3. DIRECT the Human Relations Commission to notify all individuals who attend the Commission's public meetings on this subject that they are encouraged to attend the Board of Supervisors' . meeting on August 1, 1995 at 10:00 A.M. and provide their testimony regarding the Ordinance directly to the Board of Supervisors, in addition to whatever testimony they also wish to provide to the Human Relations Commission. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE: -RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR -RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE _OTHER SIGNATURE(S): MARK n -SA LNT .R .TTM Rnr�RRS ACTION OF BOARD ON- •Tune 13, 995 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_ OTHER 1 VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE —_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT - AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN - .. AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc: See Page 3 SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR By ,DEPUTY. I.O.-2 � 4. REQUEST the Sheriff-Coroner to comply with the suggestion of the District Attorney that the Sheriff provide specific training to those of, his personnel who are charged with the enforcement of the Ordinance to insure that it is applied in an appropriate manner and REQUEST the Sheriff-Coroner to report to the Board of Supervisors on August 1, 1995 at 10:00 A.M. on how and what training will be provided. 5. AGREE that, if the Ordinance is adopted, the adoption be subject to the following conditions: A. The Board of Supervisors will review the implementation and enforcement of the Ordinance six months after it has been in effect. B. The recognition that the Board of Supervisors can modify or rescind the Ordinance at any time the Board becomes convinced that the Ordinance is being misused. C. That any and all complaints about the enforcement of the Ordinance will be referred to the Human Relations Commission for investigation and a report to the Board of Supervisors. 6. REMOVE this subject as a referral to the Internal Operations Committee. BACKGROUND: On February 28, 1995, the Board of Supervisors referred to our Committee a recommendation from Supervisor Rogers that the Board explore the feasibility of adopting an Ordinance similar to those adopted in Richmond and Monrovia which would permit law enforcement officers in the unincorporated area of the County to stop and question individuals who are loitering and who appear to be selling drugs. The Human Relations Commission was also asked to review the proposal and provide its report to our Committee. In addition, the Youth Commission considered the matter and has provided our Committee with a report on its findings and recommendations. , We have also received written positions from the District Attorney and Sheriff-Coroner. Attached are copies of the following documents which were considered by our Committee: • A May 30, 1995 memorandum from Deputy County Counsel Kevin T. Kerr with a copy of a proposed ordinance prohibiting loitering for purposes of drug-related activities. • A copy of a May 22, 1995 memorandum from the District Attorney supporting such an ordinance with certain conditions. • A copy of a May 17, 1995 memorandum from the Sheriff-Coroner supporting such an ordinance with certain conditions. • A copy of a May 17, 1995 memorandum from the Youth Commission supporting such an ordinance with certain conditions. • A copy of a May 30, 1995 memorandum and attachments from the Human Relations Commission, opposing the ordinance, but suggesting that additional hearings be held in the communities most likely to be affected. On June 5, 1995, our Committee met with County Counsel Vic Westman, Deputy County Counsel Kevin Kerr, Human Relations Commission Chair, The Rev. Dr. Arthur Manning, Human Relations Commission member Olivia Moritz, Human Relations Commission member Oscar Bobrow and Richmond resident Maxon Powell. 2 I.O.-2 Mr. Westman simmarized','the':provisions of the Ordinance and the status of appellate court review of the Monrovia Ordinance. Both the State Court of Appeals and State Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from a Superior Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Monrovia ordinance, although there is no written decision making any appellate findings on the validity of the Ordinance. Mr. Bobrow summarized the materials which were distributed by the Human Relations Commission and expressed his personal view that the proposed Ordinance was unconstitutional. He noted his concern that the Ordinance would lead to a police state where individuals could be arrested for what are otherwise innocent and entirely legal activities. He indicated that he thought the Ordinance was unnecessary because there were sufficient laws in place to address inappropriate activities and that the Ordinance, as drawn, was overly broad. The Rev. Dr. Manning and Ms. Moritz both spoke in opposition to the Ordinance and in support of the concerns expressed by Mr. Bobrow. Our Committee noted the attached memos from the District Attorney and Sheriff-Coroner supporting the Ordinance with certain conditions. We also noted the support of the Countywide Youth Commission and the conditions they placed on their support of the Ordinance. Mr. Powell spoke in support of the Ordinance and the need for the police to have as many tools available as possible to prevent or control the sale of illegal drugs. Supervisor DeSaulnier suggested that the Ordinance be approved subject to a six-month review, that any complaints be referred to the Human Relations Commission .for investigation and report to the Board, that the special training of the Sheriff's personnel recommended by the District Attorney be provided. Supervisor Rogers indicated his support for these recommendations and conditions. In response to a question from Mr. Bobrow as to whether the Human Relations Commission should continue to conduct hearings in various areas of the County, our Committee agreed that they should do so, but that individuals should also be encouraged to attend the Board of Supervisors meeting and provide their input directly to the Board. As a result, we are recommending that the Ordinance be introduced at this time, but that adoption of the Ordinance be deferred until August 1, 1995 to give the Human Relations Commission time to conduct the hearings in various areas of the County. cc: County Administrator District Attorney Sheriff-Coroner County Counsel Countywide Youth Commission (Via Supervisor DeSaulnier's Office) Human Relations Commission (Via Supervisor DeSaulnier's Office) 3 COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA Date: May 30, 1995 To: Internal Operations Committee Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier Supervisor Jim Rogers From: Victor J. Westman, County Counsel By: Kevin T. Kerr, Deputy County Counsel Re: Draft Ordinance Prohibiting Loitering For Purposes of Drug- Related Activities As requested, attached is a draft ordinance concerning the above subject. The attached draft is substantially similar to Monrovia\Richmond ordinances on the same subject. The draft ordinance, if adopted, would make it a, misdemeanor for persons to loiter in a manner and circumstances manifesting the purpose of engaging in illegal drug-related activity. Under the draft: ordinance, if a police officer observes a person loitering, as defined therein, the person may be arrested without further action or first directing the person to leave the area. The draft ordinance will apply generally to all geographic locations and not specific types of locations. Also attached is the May 19, 1993 opinion of the District Attorney, which declared a similar modified draft version of the Monrovia ordinance to appear "to be constitutionally valid and enforceable." A slightly different approach to regulation in this area has been considered by the City of Berkeley. That approach is different than the attached draft in the following ways: the officer must first require the person to leave the area and the person is arrested only upon his or her refusal and\or return to the area; specific types of geographic locations are set forth (at or within a block of a park, school, retail liquor outlet, etc. ); and the officer must have information (from himself, other officers, a reliable informant, or complainants) that the person intends to or is engaging, or has engaged, in illegal activity at that location and such information is consistent with the .officer's observations of the person's behavior at that location. May 30, 1995 Page 2 KTK\kv attachments cc: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator (w\attchmts) Warren Rupf, Sheriff (w\attchmts) - Gary Yancey, District Attorney (w\attchmts) - Sa:bd-supe\lolter.ord ow I O ORDINANCE 95- (Loitering For Purposes of Drug-Related Activities) The. Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical footnotes from the official text from the enacted provisions of the County Ordinance Code) . SECTION I. Chapter 54-18 is added to the Contra Costa County Ordinance to read as follows: CHAPTER 54-18 LOITERING FOR PURPOSES OF DRUG-RELATED ACTIVITIES 54-18.002 Purpose. Persons loitering in, on, or near any thoroughfare or place open to the public or near any public or private place with the intent to buy, sell, transfer, possess, or use illegal drugs pose a serious threat to the health, safety, and welfare of citizens, including neighboring residents and passers-by. Because of the increasing danger that .such activity creates, this ordinance is needed to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. (Ord. 95- 54-18.004 Acts Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to loiter in, on, or near any.thoroughfare or place open to the public or near any public or private place in a manner and under circumstances manifesting the purpose of engaging in drug-related activity defined as offenses in Chapters 6 and 6.5 of Division 10 of the California Health and Safety Code. (Ord. 95-_.) 54-18.006 Circumstances. Any of the following circumstances may be considered in determining whether the purpose of engaging in drug-related activity is manifested by a loitering person, and such circumstances are not exclusive: (1) The person is a.known unlawful drug user, possessor, or seller. For purposes of this chapter, a "known unlawful drug user, possessor, or seller" is a person who has, within the knowledge of the arresting officer, been convicted in any court within this state of any violation involving the use, possession or sale of any of the substances referred to in Chapters 6 and 6.5 of Division 10 of the California Health and Safety Code. (2) The person displays physical characteristics of drug intoxication or usage, such as "needle tracks." (3) The person possesses drug paraphernalia. (4) The person is currently subject to an order prohibiting 1 ORDINANCE NO. 95- his or her presence in a high drug activity geographic area. (5) The person behaves in such a manner as to raise a reasonable suspicion that he or she is about to engage in or is then engaged in an unlawful drug-related activity, including by way of example only, acting as a "lookout." ... ........ . (6) The person is physically identified by the officer as a member of a "gang," or association which has as a purpose illegal drug activity. (7) The person transfers small objects or packages for currency in a furtive fashion. (8) The person takes flight upon the appearance of a police officer. (9) The person tries to conceal himself or herself or any object which reasonably could be involved in an unlawful drug- related activity. (10) The person is in a geographic area that is known for unlawful drug use and trafficking. (11) The person is on or in premises that have been reported to law enforcement as a place suspected of unlawful drug activity. (12) The person is in or within six feet of any vehicle registered to a known unlawful drug user, possessor, or seller, or person for whom there is an outstanding warrant for a. crime involving drug-related activity. (Ord. 95-_. ) 2 ORDINANCE NO. 95- +.__�-.-.._...-.. .._ _..................... CONTRA COSTA C%v41.i;";' RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Contra Costa County MAY r g � Administration Division (510)646-2645 OFFICE OF _ COUNTY Date: May 17, 1995 To: Intemal Operations Committee, Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier,. Supervisor Jim Rogers Via:: Claude Van Marter,Assistant County Administrator From: Wa e u f, heriff Subject: "Loite g.Ordinance" This is a response to the Board.of Supervisors referral of a proposed"Loitering"ordinance to this Office on February 28; 1995; The proposed ordinance has been reviewed and noted that it is similar to the ordinance from Monrovia,California which has withstood the test of state appeal courts. Also noted however, is the ordinance,reputedly originated in Cincinnati,Ohio,was eventually overturned by a Federal Court. This office supports the adoption of an ordinance that provides tools for law enforcement officers to rid our communities of street drug dealers. 'Inherent, in any law or power given to law enforcement is the constant concern of possible abuse. Historically law enforcement has been entrusted with the broadest powers in our society when given the authority to arrest,detain and search our citizens. These broad powers require extensive training and an intense selection process to ensure that officer's are given the tools and have the capacity to handle such power. The proposed ordinance if adopted would not be unlike any other inventory of laws or discretionary acts available to law enforcement to use to combat problems in of our society. My support for the proposed ordinance is only conditioned on the drafting of an ordinance that meets the needs of our community that will withstand legal tests...The use and or misuse will be controlled by this office as we presently control,guide and direct our law enforcement officers in all their duties. RFP:Is - cc: Victor J.Westman, County Counsel rkGarv'-Y Ley;District Attorney f I CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE YOUTH COMMISS(ON established in 1995 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Countywide Youth Commission DATE: May 17, 1995 SUBJECT: Drug Loitering Ordinance ! I On April' 26; 1995, after thorough study, discussion, and debate, the Countywide Youth Commisslon voted 12 to 9 to recommend adoption of the Drug Loitering Ordinance to the-Board of Supervisors. The ordinance, proposed by Supervisor Jim Rogers, is seen by the majority of the Youth Commissioners as an additional tool law enforcement personnel can use to help curb the sale and distribution of illegal substances within the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. The concern of harassment of citizens and abuse of the ordinance was widely # discussed at the April 26 meeting and passage of the recommendation was based on ' the following provisions, which the Youth Commission recommends the Supervisors t include in the ordinance: 1. The ordinance be used on a trial basis and will require the Sheriff's Department to provide updates every six months to the Board of Supervisors on its effectiveness. 2. If there is a founded, documented case of harassment by a Sheriff's Deputy while the ordinance is being enforced,the Board of Supervisors will have the power to rescind the ordinance. 3. The Board of Supervisors will also have the power to amend the ordinance when deemed necessary, therefore, making the ordinance flexible to satisfactorily meet the needs of the community. 2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 110, Concord, CA 94520-4817 (510) 646-5763; (510) 646-5767 (fax) I was prohibited. Mr. Coleman further pointed out that the statute as written was an invitation to law enforcement to detain, search and subject to physical intrusions (such as removal to the police station where body cavity searches could be conducted) citizens who were not engaged in any criminal behavior. The representative from the ACLU that appeared also pointed out that the ordinance was contrary to present law protecting zti: freedom of association. - The ACLU was most concerned with the rights of persons most likely to be affected by the enforcement of the ordinance and pointed out that "mere presence" in the community where drug dealing was taking place would be grounds for unwanted contact by the police. Citing similar legal authority as the Public Defender, the position of the ACLU was that too much discretion would be in the hands of the police which could lead to a deterioration of relations in communities where tensions between law enforcement and the citizenry are already strained. The above sentiment regarding freedom to associate and to be free from unwanted contact with law enforcement was additionally reflected by the public participation at the hearing. Speaking against the ordinance was an African American citizen of the county (and recipient of the County's Humanitarian of the Year award) who described an experience with law enforcement in which he was humiliated during a routine traffic stop by a member of one of the County's police departments. Based on-the fact that no time limit was given to HRC as to when the Board of Supervisors wanted a response to the request to evaluate the proposed ordinance the Commission feels that this report should serve as an interim report. Thus, it is the position of the HRC that seeking additional opinions in the form of additional public hearings, held in the in communities most likely to be effected by the increased power this ordinance would grant to law enforcement, could be helpful to the Board's decision on whether to enact the ordinance as written. At this time, however, the opinion of the Human Relations Commission would be to recommend against the proposed ordinance as an unconstitutional and unwarranted intrusion into the innocent behavior of the citizens of the county by law enforcement. Please see the attached 1993 North Carolina Law Review article on this subject. Please also note that despite the article, attached .to the proposed ordinance when the ordinance was originally sent to the HRC for review, which dealt with a similar ordinance out of Monrovia California, no written opinion of any court in California has been cited to the Commission that would in fact uphold the constitutionality of the proposed ordinance. Despite being invited, as were all the other participants who attended, the District Attorney did .pot send a representative to the hearing. Wednesday,April 19, 1995 West County Times- k Albany trading cards teach safe driving The Albany Police Department,among the first in the nation to offer trading, cards as a means to humanize the police,has introduced trading cards of Ich local teen-agers who promote safe driving. 4A ' lin- :es Gr:es F....,, re• ..,:*,.4x r».:rJjDs."*su,:-.y;....;d`k!#`".JF%$.C�aR&'..fid.."a"'.�'�3L?kdFss.:;, ..vx...x:.,:'.'�-..."atro:sYY�`?Xt�r!t>.;;�:.`a;'�ca.'c.:':>.:.`.e%1Pi`a�:b�s � 13- he ties have hi her ratengndad g . d East Palo Alto.Thirty figures are 14 percent and 17 percent,re- effective means of curbing the spread of the tts Ws de users carry the virus. spectively,in San Francisco. disease. tDS prevention activists The incidence of HIV and AIDS is high- Injection drug users often share needles dt i30 percent figure when est in cities with few resources devoted to because they are difficult to come by.State j xincreased AIDS aware- preventing the spread of the disease,%t- law requires a prescription to obtain nee- change programs. ters said. dies.Several cities,including San Francisco IIV prevention specialist Watters said prevention efforts must stress and Oakland,have exchange programs be- , ijf;zs;�f;; bsta County AIDS pro- accessible and affordable drug treatment, cause county officials declared local states uond and East Palo Alto increased outreach and awareness educe- of emergency allowing them to sidestep the to epidemic on the West tion,voluntary and free HIV testing and law. blic forum in December counseling and needle exchange programs. Contra Costa County supervisors could blity of needle exchange Contra Costa County has an active AIDS do the same but are waiting for lawmakers i prevention program and Richmond has a in Sacramento to make such programs le- t of all IV drug users in methadone clinic to help heroin addicts kick gal.That,however,is unlikely because Gov rbout 22 percent of those their habit,but the community lacks a nee-- Wilson has vetoed three times in as many ;have HIV or AIDS.The dle exchange program,often considered an years legislation that would do just that Sheriff joins ACLU to oppose plan400 _ that would end drug-related loitering By MICHAEL HYTHA to avoid is something that could lead the way to the California Supreme Staff writer to a misuse of the authority we have Court.Between 40 and 60 drug deal-'-' MARTINEZ — A proposal to now.. ers have been prosecuted under it, make drug-related loitering illegal Concord rapper Norman Berry, said Joseph Santoro,the city's po- g g 8 who Is better known by his stage in Contra Costa's unincorporated name,Chill E.B.,said young black lice chief. b mute Sheriff's unities s sharply �ent�and the ticized men would be subject to more ha- He said arresting people who ap•' ACLU at a sparsely attended hear- rassment if the ordinance became pear to be dealing,just one feature Ing Tuesday ightlaw.'f this is in place,I have to worry of a larger community-based ap-, The opposition from the Ameri- about it every day,"said Berry,the proach to law enforcement, has can Civil Liberties Union, the only member of the public present dampened the curbside trade in rockF I' county's Public Defender's Office at the meeting. cocaine. and members of the county's Human The proposed ordinance would I Relations Commission,who con- allow sheriff's deputies to stop and 'It's one of many tools that we- ducted e-ducted the hearing,was no surprise. search loiterers who appear to be need to suppress what is in some In•:• j But Sheriff's Capt.John Gack- dealing drugs on streets and side- stances blatant criminal activity,", i owski said his department would rec- walks in unincorporated areas. Santoro said. I' ommend against the proposed ordi- Critics charge such laws violate nance based on a similar one passed the Fourth Amendment's protections Contra Costa Supervisor Jim.` in Richmond two years ago.Allow- against unreasonable search and Rogers,who pushed through a sim- ing deputies to arrest people they seizure.Anti-loitering laws Inevitably gar ordinance while a Richmond City.' suspect of drug dealing based on lead to discrimination against mi- Councilman,said clearly definin their association with gangs or even norities,they say. g just because they care within six feet The ACLU has sued to overturn what constitutes suspicious activity of a known drug dealer's car would an anti-loitering measure Berkeley will head off potential abuses. be"fraught with problems,"he said. voters approved in November. A properly drafted ordinance Monrovia, 14 miles east of Los 'I feel comfortable that this is not i could be a useful tool,"Gackowski Angeles,passed a similar ordinance a blank check for discriminatory be-' said."What the sheriff's office wants in 1990 and fought legal attacks all havior,"Rogers said. !' CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION 2425-Bisso Lane, Suite 120-A, Concord, California 94520 (510) 646-5322 PRESS RELEASE ON APRIL 18, 1995 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE GEORGE GORDON CENTER AT 500 COURT STREET IN MARTINEZ, THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION WILL HOLD A HEARING ON THE PROPRIETY OF SUPERVISOR ROGERS' PROPOSED "ANTI-LOITERING ORDINANCE". REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER AND THE ACLU WILL BE IN ATTENDANCE. THE HEARING WILL ADDRESS THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ORDINANCE, WHETHER PRESENT LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS ARE ADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH THE LOITERING PROBLEM AND WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS WILL BE ON THE CITIZENRY MOST LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDINANCE. THE PUBLIC IS ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND. ii:i IE al C3 CD CD `Ja 0 AS tJ) 'v 0 o", o" 5-10 !F:r Q8 5 s 0.co I . fA 0 O go 11-P 0 e s O t -0 rco O t lR In :5 0 0 C 7-:- - c- S.-- 'A Oft N p OO cr cr C- In Co C ::$ CSA CD CD �-12 i-�('o I-t-;� o tn c% 0 11 eb vt-, O Im 00 CD C6 CV, 0 0 0* n O CIA :P— Margaret 4 Lasher,Chairman of the board Wore E.RICO.publisher and chi.(e..fj"erpm • t ' 1. CWytw Har*vk-OCUOM editor&Noe presJdent/rle'ws owls M.Thomas.general manager -. Bob Goll,masa"editor Therm"A.KeeW,editorial page eWW 'EDITORIAL EDITORIAL Anti-loitering plan. is not a- solution to drug dealing Everyone readily acknowledges that drug dealing is a problem.However, an anti-loitering proposal will not solve the problem and,indeed,has great potential for creating even more problems for law enforcement. The anti-loitering idea,which the super- visors correctly sent to the county Human Relations Commission for input,.would al- low law enforcement officers to stop and search people loitering on streets and side- walks in unin- corporaCed There are areas. Targeted at many laws people who look as if they're already in tryingto deal lace to deal drugs,there are p too many loop- with actual holes in this proposal to sup drug dealers port it.There are many laws already in place to deal with drug dealers. There is no need to potentially wear away the rights guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment protecting Americans from unreasonable search and seizure. If county supervisor fun Rogers,who proposed this measure,wants to get tough on drug dealers,he can start by allocating enough money to allow the sheriffs de- partment to start community policing in unincorporated areas.This allows officers to personally know the people in a commu- nity—who the good people are and who are the ones who cause problems.Law of- facers can then have a better understand- ing of where the drugs are coming from and they can effectively put an end to the, dealing,using existing laws. To make petty busts on street corner dealers will not solve drug dealing—espe- cially given the fact that our legal system is alredy overburdened. . To simply stop people who are hanging; out at street corners and search them on the pretext of looking for drugs will do lit- tle but erode a populations already shrink- ing faith that the cops are the good guys. The county's human relations commis- sion should look into this policy,note the obvious flaws in it,and come up with some real solutions—and the money to imple- ment them—to address neighborhood drug dealing,without robbing all citizens of their fundamental rights. DATE: REQUEST To SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form 'and piace it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. - \ NAME: PHONE: 3q q- -I �..�``� ADDRESS: !l P CrrY: 1 I am speaking formyself OR organization: +\ (NAME OF ORCAW1q-Xl*IOX) Check one: I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of /01 vll� I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. DATE: REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NA.tiiE: G( PHONE: ADDRESS: �&- 6 2 woo on"10. CITY: I am speaking formyself OR organization: (NAME OF ORGAN17_hTION) ChX eck one: I wish to speak.on Agenda Item # D My comments will be: general for X- against I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. DATE: - ` REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: 42/1LUZ42L l PHONE:any)2-?4-40'7 n ADDRESS: Lf c�r9, -fi'.� -5: Cny: Jam, I am speaking formyself OR organization: .Pj19t-( R. ,4-2A &j�Z&PAVAO COvaz� Check one: GAME OF ORGAN17_MTIOX} I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against C/ I wish to speak on the subjectof I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. DATE: ' REQUEST To SPEAK FORM Y. (THREE (3) MINU'T'E LIMIT Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NAME: ����-n�.a2e �/ ��� �-��,(�Sd/� PHONE: T,-l� v ADDRESS: �O `/l/ ) n� , W ��_ �v lK� CTIY: I am speaking formyself OR organization: 1L)ec Check one: (NAME OF ORGAWIZNTIOX) I wish to speak on Agenda Item # My comments will be: general for against . I wish to speak on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider. DATE: i = REQUEST To SPEAK FoRM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) S Complete this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. NA.mEWEM PHONE.- p�) ADDRESS: Cmr: F)3 �/ I am speaking formyself OR organization: (NAME OF ORGANIX-NTION') Check one: t� d I wish to speak on Agenda Item # u� t My comments will be: general for against I wish to speak on the subject of .���.� — �.���� c'1 �.3.►hr�rv,,�4, I do not wish to speak but leave these comments.for the Board to consider. C v ' ` 4 )q� SPEAKERS 1. Deposit the "Request to Speak" form (on the reverse side) in the box next to the speaker: microphones before your item is to be considered. 2. You will be:called to make your presentation. Please speak into the microphone. 3. Begin by stating your name and address; whether you are speaking for yourself or as representative of an organization. 4. Give the Clerk a copy of your presentation or support documentation. if available. 5. Please,lima your presentation to three minutes. Avoid repeating comments made by previou speakers. aThe Chair may limit length of presentations so all persons may be heard.) T06 C Jo U3 MAK &'-p 0�- �'