December 15, 2014
An open letter on law
enforcement misconduct and practices in Minneapolis
To: Minneapolis
city council members, Mayor Betsy Hodges, Chief of Police Janeé Harteau and John Delmonico, President of the Police
Officer’s Federation and Mike Freeman, Hennepin
County Attorney. Copies to media, individuals and organizations listed
below.
Dear all;
In an October 8, 2014 open letter to the Minneapolis
community, Mayor Betsy Hodges said it was her mission to reform the police
department and end “once and for all,” the type of conduct of those officers
who “abuse the trust that is afforded to them,
and take advantage of their roles to do harm rather than prevent it.”
I applaud her determination, something lacking in previous city
administrations. However, I am reminded that we have heard talk of reforming
police practices and relations for decades. The persistent abuse of authority,
use of excessive force and disrespect for people’s rights continues.
Mayor Hodges has courageously put the issue of police
misconduct on the front pages. This is a significant step and can become an
opportunity for further change. This letter is intended to be supportive of the
mayor, but at the same time raise the ante as to what our city should expect of
the mayor’s plans for reform. Reforms that many people, myself included,
consider modest.
This letter is an individual initiative in solidarity with
the thousands of people marching, protesting and demanding change in policing
practices and conduct, in our city, state and around the nation. My hope is this
adds to the burgeoning movement for fair and just law enforcement.
That goal cannot be reached if those law enforcement
officers who commit homicide, brutalize people and systematically profile
people of color have few or no consequences. Yet the problem is much deeper and
systemic than just the conduct of individual officers. The legacy of racism in
the United States permeates law enforcement practices and attitudes.
In this letter I use three recent examples of Minneapolis
police officers’ brutality and violation of civil rights to suggest alternative approaches to what appears
to be typical policing practices in our city and around the nation. These three
examples alone should cause alarm to elected officials and citizens alike.
I wrote the first draft of this letter several weeks before
KSTP aired what became known as “Pointergate.” The spurious allegations leveled
against the mayor by some police officers have proven to be a crass attempt to
make the mayor back off her initiative. Such an attack is not surprising as
there is a long record of police push back to avoid criticism and reform.
The public outcry over Pointergate shows signs the long-standing
culture of indifference common among white citizens toward the profiling of
people of color is beginning to change. This is especially evident among white
youth. I am white myself. For several decades I have participated in struggles
to end discriminatory law enforcement and judicial practices. I have attended
numerous protests. Yet, I could have done more. Been more determined and persistent.
Like so many millions of others I am outraged over the
killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in August. Since then at least
seven more unarmed black Americans have been killed by police officers. The
injustice of the grand jury’s decision not to indict Darren Wilson adds to the
grief, indignation and justified anger of communities of color and all people
of conscience. Brown’s death is inexcusable. The culture of racist impunity
trumped justice once again.
An open, fair and public trial, not one held in grand jury
secrecy, would have been a just way to proceed in Ferguson. The outcome was not
unexpected. Even in our own state no officer has been indicted for killing an
unarmed person of color.
Our city’s list of victims includes 22-year old, African-American,
Terence Franklin, killed by police officers, on May 10, 2013, just blocks from
my neighborhood. At that time I made a renewed commitment, as did many others
to challenge policing practices and attitudes that lead to brutality, profiling
and killing of the unarmed. This includes insisting the city, the police
department and police federation work to rid the department of those who cannot
or will not change their attitudes and conduct.
I recognize police work is difficult, stressful and at times
dangerous. I am not an expert in policing nor do I have law enforcement
experience. However, I am an informed observer. Citizens need not be experts to
know that the misconduct and attitudes of some officers is inexcusable, such as
that illustrated by my examples. Such misconduct fosters distrust in the
community; a distrust that all officers must face.
The number of officers prone to misconduct is widely
disputed. The common assumption, and one implied in the mayor’s open letter, is
that it is more than a few, but not pervasive. Those who have been victims of
profiling for years tell me they feel it is the latter. If it were just a few
officers, it seems the problem could have been solved long ago. Yet, police
chief after police chief, mayor after mayor come and go and the problems
persist.
There are no doubt many thoughtful officers in the
department dedicated to their work and fair policing. And there are many more of these officers
since discrimination in hiring was ended in the 1960s. Women and officers of color
and other national backgrounds and sexual preferences bring a perspective to
policing that elevates the department’s image and professionalism.
But they too must abide by policing practices they may not
condone. They may be torn between loyalty to the department and their moral
conscience. We hear that some fear speaking out against the conduct of other
officers for fear of reprisal or being ostracized.
I hope this letter might encourage police officers troubled
by the conduct they witness to speak out. A key role the mayor, police chief
and city leaders must play is to assure officers who choose to speak out
publicly or confidentially are protected from recrimination. Such internal
criticism and reflection is one of the most important ingredients needed to
stop the systematic infringement of people’s civil rights by those who should
be most willing to uphold such rights.
ACLU report
Critics of the American legal and law enforcement system are
in agreement that our nation’s legacy of institutional racism and bias are
built into many policing protocols and practices. As such, reform is not just
about monitoring officers behavior or better training; it requires questioning
established policing assumptions, methods and strategies. It means reigning in
the overly elastic boundaries of authority accorded law enforcement.
The context of reform is starkly revealed in a recent
investigation conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union. Among other
findings, they found that Minneapolis police officers were 11 times more likely
on average to arrest African Americans for marijuana use than whites, even though
studies show whites and African Americans use marijuana at comparable rates.
Given that usage rates are similar, it is obvious discriminatory
policing practices account for the more than 10 to one disparity. It is not too
strong a statement to call this a crime perpetrated by law enforcement
on an entire community. Yet the department expects cooperation from the same
community it targets.
The ACLU report shows more evidence of gross discrimination
in arrests rates for other offenses like vagrancy, disorderly conduct and a
nearly unbelievable disparity of 16 times the rate for black juveniles being
arrested for curfew violations or loitering compared with whites.
Police departments around the nation claim arresting people
for “low level” offenses deters crime and helps find and convict more serious
criminals. Numerous studies, however, show the claim to be spurious. Despite
this evidence, law enforcement officials, including those in Minneapolis,
continue to cite such a strategy’s effectiveness.
The outcome for African American families of such
discriminatory policing cannot be overstated.
These include legal expenses, lost wages, jail time/imprisonment and
criminal records leading to discrimination in hiring.
What the ACLU report does not raise is what should be done
to compensate individuals affected by these systematic discriminatory
practices. At the very least the following remedies are warranted. (1) Review
and expunge arrest records. (2) Reimburse costs born by individuals or families
for legal expenses. (3) Compensate for jail time served. (4) Apologize for the
injustices inflicted.
The onus to earn the trust and respect of the community lies
with the city, the police department and its officers. In light of the most
recent incidents, let alone the decades of profiling and racism, it is
unreasonable for law enforcement to expect unquestioned respect. The wounds are
too deep. The day-to-day relationship with the public must change for mutual
respect to become the norm.
Visualizing change:
from police misconduct to respectful policing
In this section, using three actual events, I pose
alternative policing practices and protocols in order to visualize the type of
outcomes we might expect from the mayor’s initiative. I have enclosed
background information on two of these cases as indicated.
Recently, an African-American friend of mine was profiled
and assaulted by Minneapolis police officers. When leaving his apartment he
noticed an argument between two individuals in the parking lot was about to
turn physical. He dutifully sought help
from a security guard, but the guard was not in the office.
When he arrived back at the scene just a few minutes later
one of the two men had been knocked to the ground. The other man had fled. A
police vehicle had arrived. My friend kept his distance from the downed man, as
the officers were on the scene.
Within minutes one of the officers approached him. My friend
expected the officer was going to ask what he witnessed or question him.
Instead the officer, without a word, threw him on the sidewalk face down and
handcuffed him.
My friend is a law abiding, college-educated retiree, who
deplores violence. After nearly 70 years of being a black man in America he was
not afforded even a modicum of respect. He is considered guilty before he is
questioned; he is brutality manhandled. I know with near certainty that a white
person would not have been mistreated and assaulted in the same situation.
The officers put him in a patrol car, took his
identification and searched their databases for possible outstanding warrants
or convictions. Apparently they just
assumed he had a criminal background. When nothing came up they realized they
made a mistake. They needed to cover their tracks.
After conferring with a superior they charged my friend with
resisting arrest! The crime committed by the officers, became my friend’s
crime. The indignities mounted. Ask a black person or another person of color
and they will tell you this type of incident happens to one degree or another in
Minneapolis as well as in surrounding suburbs everyday.
In instances like this offending officers know that even if
their conduct gets media attention, a rarity, they need not fear consequences.
They know those who actively protest police misconduct have been unsuccessful
in making change. And officers know that communities of color have little
political clout. Not for a lack of effort to organize, protest and demand
change, but because of the inertia created by white citizens’ indifference.
The mistreatment of my friend raises the importance of
reviewing police conduct, protocols and practices. Using his case and the two
that follow, I paint alternative
scenarios as to what we should expect of police conduct and practices from
the mayor’s initiative. It is time to set the bar of expectations high.
The respectful alternative
approach to my friend that also honors his constitutional rights would have
been to simply say: Excuse me sir, did you see what happened here? Cooperation
would have been duly given and the police would have been better informed about
the situation. Yet, such common courtesy was not accorded.
Instead, an officer walked up to him without saying a word
and assaulted him by throwing him on the sidewalk. As a community we need to
ask: How did law enforcement officers acquire such a right, one that trumps
everyone else’s rights? What puts them above the law of common decency? Why can
they ignore what most people would agree are universal rights to privacy, freedom
of movement and to be considered an innocent bystander, unless you are seen
committing a crime?
The freedom to take a
late night walk
The next example recently in the public media exemplifies the
type of police conduct similar to that endured by my friend (see enclosed
article marked ‘A’). In it the father of the 19-year old youth profiled by
police officers describes what took place. His account is something one can
only imagine taking place in a totalitarian state. It would not be an
overstatement to say his son was abducted, not by ransom seekers, but by law
enforcement officers.
In brief, his son was walking on a pedestrian path alongside
Minnehaha Parkway around midnight, listening to music on his headphones.
Suddenly, a squad car leaped the curb in front of him blocking his path. Two
officers jumped out, grabbed and handcuffed him. The young man did not resist
and was cooperative.
The officers deemed him a suspect in a house burglary a few
blocks away. Without a shred of suspicious behavior for them to act on they put
him in the car and took him to the address of the burglary. When they arrived
another squad had already found a better suspect. They returned his backpack
and without a word of apology let him go. The son’s account should make
everyone alarmed. I say again, if this type of policing is legal, it should be characterized
as legalized abduction.
Let’s consider, as my intent is here, how officers should
engage the young man while respecting his civil liberties, his personal freedom
and his safety. All three of which they trampled on. The following alternative policing practices are in keeping with the mission
inscribed on squad cars: to serve and protect.
In the first place, the officers would assume the young man
is simply out for a walk, innocent of wrong doing as well as someone who might
have seen something that would help them in their search. They might have
flashed their lights to get his attention, pulled up alongside the curb and ask
him some questions, moving on if nothing indicated suspicion. Clearly, this was
not their approach.
Law enforcement personnel might consider such an approach
naïve and one that could potentially endanger the officers, but what other approach
respects the rights of citizens? To
think people should give up their civil liberties to allow such conduct by
officers is an affront to the spirit of the Bill of Rights, in particular the amendment
against unlawful searches.
When the officers demanded the young man take off his
backpack so they could search it, are they not abrogating his rights? That he
happened to be nearby a possible burglary should not make him or anyone an
automatic suspect. Could it be because this young man was brown-skinned?
The entire account begs the question: How many young men
would the police have falsely accused and apprehended that night had 10 youth been
out for a walk? Would they have
apprehended all of them in a dragnet?
How absurd this would be; yet this is the logical extension of the
attitude and the policing practice.
The killing of
Terence Franklin, May 10, 2013
My attached commentary on the killing of Franklin was published
in the weekly Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder on September 19, 2013, the same day
it was announced a grand jury chose not to indict the officer(s) who shot and killed
Franklin. (See enclosed article ‘B’).
I could find no compelling evidence in the police report or
statements of officials detracting from the conclusion I drew that the killing
of Franklin is inexcusable. Had officers followed a more tolerant, patient,
policing approach, it is likely Franklin would be alive today. In the attached
article I suggest some alternative
tactics and ways of thinking about the events that stand in sharp contrast to
the response, practices and aims officers followed. As I say in the commentary:
“In addition to the many unanswered questions on what
happened that day, we should ask why the police pursued Franklin in the first
place. What began with a police report that a person was acting suspiciously
should not have escalated to the point where Franklin is dead, police officers
are injured and a police vehicle kills an innocent bystander…. Instead of
pursuing Franklin, officers could have backed off and deescalated the
situation.”
Civil lawsuits against the city are likely still in process,
but lawsuits do not erase the loss, grief and suffering of the families. The
city, however, should feel the financial pain many times more than previous
settlements. Perhaps financial pressure will move our political leaders to act
with greater determination.
Taxpayers pay for
racism and police brutality
Nearly every year the city pays settlements for lawsuits as
a consequence of police misconduct, discrimination and brutality. Since 2006
taxpayers paid $17 million for wrongful death and brutality lawsuits. No
officers involved were indicted. How much more must citizens’ pay? How many
more victims of profiling and brutality represented by this ever-growing amount
will we tolerate?
Across the nation, city officials, police departments, city
and county attorney’s offices and on up the law enforcement and legal system
seem to assume these financial costs are just part of doing business in a big
city.
There is little incentive to change behaviors and policing
protocols when no one is ever indicted for even the most egregious act–killing
an unarmed person. Offending officers keep their jobs and they know that the
next time will be no different. Taxpayers will continue to pay costs for what
is often excused by the legal fine line of “acting in the line of duty.”
Law enforcement officers here and elsewhere should know they
would be vigorously prosecuted for misconduct and brutality. The question of whether
or not to indict an officer for shooting or killing an unarmed suspect should
be determined by an open, publicly accountable process.
Internal reviews by police departments and/or investigations
led by county attorney offices before a grand jury or by the department itself
will always be suspect as there is no public scrutiny. We need to find alternatives to these mechanisms, as
both parties are branches of law enforcement. The public cannot have confidence
in a process when law enforcement investigates its own.
Given repeated behavior and conduct of some officers it
appears little will change until an officer finally faces prison time, looses
his or her job or suffers appropriate punishment. Years of officer training,
coaching and counseling, items the mayor and Chief Harteau have on their action
plan, appear to have had little effect. I am hopeful, but equally skeptical,
that their plans will be effective now.
Police and their defenders will say officers must have the
right to shoot first or someone that appears to have gun might shoot them. This
should not be considered an acceptable guideline for taking the life of an
unarmed person. Yet it is often the sole excuse. And all too often in these
cases, like the police assault on my friend, what actually occurred is altered
by officers in order to cover their own misconduct or crime.
Again I wish to raise
the ante and suggest that communities should have a voice in deciding which
officers are assigned to patrol their neighborhoods and have veto power over
those they do not trust or are known to be discriminatory. Perhaps some
consultation already takes place, but creating a formal, fair process offers a
possibility of improving policing and community relations with law enforcement.
In light of the public outcry over the most recent killing
of unarmed African Americans and other people of color around the nation, it is
difficult to imagine any other route to building more trusting relationships.
Such an initiative is what an apology should look like.
I wish to restate my assumption that many, perhaps most
Minneapolis police officers are well meaning and trying to do the best job they
can. They do serve and do care. Whatever
portion of the department they are, I encourage them to stand up and support
the mayor’s efforts. And furthermore, I encourage them to stand with the
African-American community’s long-standing quest for fair and impartial
policing and an end to harassment and profiling.
Each official listed above is obligated as well. And all
citizens must say loudly and persistently, enough is enough. We will be
indifferent no more.
Sincerely,
Wayne Nealis
cc:
Senator Scott Dibble, Rep. Frank Hornstein, city reporters at local major
media, KFAI, MinnPost and the Daily Planet
bcc: Several dozen social
justice activists and advocacy groups, colleagues and friends.
