Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2010

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/20/18642123.php

Homeless Frame-Up by Cops and City Attorney Defeated in Rare Court Victory
by Robert Norse

Saturday Mar 20th, 2010 4:59 PM

The City’s “Go to Sleep; Go to Jail” campaign suffered a rare setback with two “Not Guilty” verdicts after a four-hour contempt hearing for Anna Richardson and Miguel deLeon on Friday, March 19th. Judge Timothy Volkman returned to the plain language of MC 6.36.010c which makes sleeping, even on blankets, even with your possessions around you, a legal activity during the day if you have no intention of remaining overnight and haven’t “set up a campsite”, no matter how much that infuriates police officers who want you to move along.

BREAKFASTING WITH THE BIRDS

The day began outside the main entrance of the courthouse at 8:15 AM with a free breakfast provided by Joe Schultz, soon to open a new restaurant downtown on Front St. Schultz has long been a supporter of homeless protest actions in Santa Cruz, a rare exception to the cowed, indifferent, or hostile response of many merchants downtown.

The Downtown Association, whose former executive director Peter Eberle, voted to end the entire Camping Ban in 1999 when he was on the Homeless Issues Task Force has since refused to even discuss modifying the Sleeping Ban sections of the camping ordinance under the leadership of its new director, “Chip”.

Over a dozen homeless people munched coffeecake, sipped coffee,and spoke out about their experiences outside. Curbhugger Chris Doyen passionately denounced the existing laws that target homeless survival behavior like sleeping and sitting in public places. Congressional Candidate and Attorney Ed Frey (pronounced “fry”) described his appeal of the case of Robert “Blindbear” Facer on the grounds that waking people up is torture and requiring people to wake up, get ticketed, move, and get a letter asserting what everyone knows–that there’s no shelter–is cruel & unusual punishment.

Anna Richardson’s pro bono Jonathan Gettleman, decked out in a dark court-friendly suit, said his main focus today would be keeping his clients out of jail. “Compassion, not more punishment” is required, Gettleman noted, adding “everyone knows the shelters are wholly inadequate. People don’t want to be treated like they’re in prison just cause they want to sleep…”

JUDGE VOLKMAN’S INITIAL POSITION

Initially things didn’t look too good. Attorneys Mark Briscoe and Jonathan Gettleman sitting alongside defendant Miguel deLeon faced City Attorney John Barisone. Judge Volkman dismissed all of the defense’s concerns about the May 2009 Injunction itself being improper, the minute order served not matching Barisone’s final language, and Barisone’s affidavit being incomplete. The complaints were police reports and citations from three officers, one of whom, Officer Martin, was on vacation.

Barisone decided (ill advisedly as it turned out) to proceed with the case without Officer Martin, who was apparently 50% of his case. The one point the Gettleman/Briscoe defense team won was a ruling from the judge that “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” was the standard the City Attorney had to meet, since the penalty involved possible jail time and was hence ‘quasi-criminal”. Some thought the reason Barisone was using a Civil Injunction was to evade the need for a real trial with a high standard of proof and more protections for the defendants.

Barisone also chose not to use the “three infractions ignored makes a misdemeanor” law which he and City Council added to the city code in January 2009 over the objections of homeless advocates. Did this mean that the two homeless musicians had either dealt with all their citations, or hadn’t gotten three since May 2009? Or was Barisone simply using a procedure with less protection for the defendants (a civil Injunction that seems to circumvent the need for a jury trial, is not susceptible of appeal, and provides for no appointed public defender)?

The “case” for contempt itself involved four incidents of police contact between the two and Officers Winston, Forbus, and Martin. The issue wasn’t sleeping at night or sleeping at all, even though the cops woke them up, prompting their anger. The issue was “setting up a campsite with the intention of remaining overnight” downtown in the “forbidden zone” created by Barisone and ratified by Judge Burdick in May (http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_12483386?IADID=Search-www.santacruzsentinel.com-www.santacruzsentinel.com).

Three witnesses testified–Officers Forbus and Winston and homeless expert Linda Lemaster. Forbus and Winston are downtown beat officers under the jurisdiction of Sgts. Harms and Garner, to whom they reportedly pass on reports of all contacts with the two targeted homeless musicians. Lemaster previously served the city as Chair of the Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women and of the Homeless Issues Task Force. She is currently on the County’s Homeless Action Partnership.

THE ISSUES AND LINDA LEMASTER’S TESTIMONY

The key legal issues under scrutiny were (1) what determines whether a person as “set up a campsite” and (2) what is the standard for proving they had “an intention to remain overnight”.
Both connditiosn are required to cite and convict someone during the day under MC 6.36.010c. At night just sleeping or covering up with blankets after 11 PM is itself illegal on all public property, on much private property, in any structure that isn’t a house or hotel, and in any vehicle parked on public property. A third was whether the presence of homeless possessions next to an individual sitting, lying, or sleeping was itself significant or sufficient evidence of a campsite and an intention to remain overnight.

Lemaster testified there was a waiting list for storage lockers at the Homeless Services Center and insisted that commercial storage lockers are out of reach for anyone without a stable income. She talked about her own difficult experiences when a homeless mom. Barisone vigorously cross-examined her, suggesting that lockers were available for storing homeless property without even hinting at any evidence. He volunteered that homeless failure to apply for shelter and services indicates a conscious scofflaw mentality and not a function of the wearisome homeless treadmill. Finally he ignored the well-known and unchanging lack of shelter space and services. “Many homeless people stop trying,” said Lemaster. “They are pressured over time to give up on waiting lists and application hurdles in order to stay focused on immediate survival needs.”

Lemaster subsequently claimed that numbers of local homeless people exceed access to even momentary public aid by a facto of more than 15-1. “Homelessness,” she noted, “is a growing epidemic that will not be resolved by municipalities.” “It is profoundly immoral to simply pluck out the most egregious presences on Pacific Avenue, while ignoring the forces that destroy everyone else outside until they get sick or angry or messy or die.”

Last year’s county homeless death figure was nearly three times that of the prior year (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/12/19/18633184.php?show_comments=1#18633349).

Not discussed at all were the difficulties involved even when Armory shelter space is available. Shelter space is never available in the late spring, summer, and early fall for 95% of the chronically homeless who apply, according to Lemaster. Requirements include: Show up early and so miss work opportunities; Face what some call unhealthful conditions sleeping in a room on the floor with many coughing and sick people; Show picture ID; Deal with what some have described as discriminatory treatment by ill-paid staff and Armory personnel; Abandon most of one’s property during the night; Accept sexually segregated sleeping conditions; etc.
etc.

BAD SENTINEL REPORTING

Sentinel reporter J.M. Brown sat through the proceedings and wrote a heavily merchant-friendly story. It mostly ignored the deeper legal issues and repeated deceptive and incomplete descriptions from prior stories. J.M. Brown cast the two defendants in a bad light, highlighting merchant fears and unproven allegations. (See “Judge dismisses some charges in preliminary injunction against S.C. couple accused of violating city’s camping ban” at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_14711762?source=rss).

Brown nowhere mentioned the costs of the proceeding nor indicated the bizarre nature of the patently fraudulent charges (even under the abusive wording of the Injunction covering downtown sleeping and the absurd Sleeping Ban making it illegal everywhere else). Apparently he didn’t think to ask the City Attorney: “Why would you think that two people sleeping at midday with their possessions downtown constituted a campsite?” “How could that possibly mesh with the wording of the law and the Injunction?” “Why would you spend city time and money and waste the court’s time with this?”

Reporter Brown repeated the unproven, irrelevant, and inflammatory charges of “bathing in a fountain”, “destroying trees” , “trespassing” and other claims rejected in the May Injunction hearing, Those smears were not permitted in this contempt hearing which was specifically held to determine only whether the two were violating the Camping Ordinance in the forbidden Downtown zone–the only behavior the Injunction bans, and the only “crimes” alleged.

It was not proven at the May 2009 hearing that created the original injunction that Richardson and DeLeon were a Public Nuisance, simply that they were regularly charged (but not convicted) of violating the unconstitutional Sleeping Ban. This alone was the grounds for labeling them a “nuisance per se”, not any substantial nuisance behavior. Thus was created this unique Injunction which bans an essential human function–sleeping, and set the two up as police targets. Not because their behavior specifically injured anyone, but because nighttime homeless sleeping is and has been illegal in Santa Cruz since 1978.

Brown used [phrases like “vagrancy”–an outdated and prejudicial epithet which criminalizes poor people outside for their status). “Years of negative public perception about safety issues” echoes a paranoid merchant perception–but the two are not charged with any violent crimes. Brown quotes Mayor Rotkin at length, who as usual talks out of both sides of his mouth–professing compassion for the homeless, but supporting the Sleeping Ban–which makes homeless people criminals for a life-sustaining act. All that De Leon and Richardson were charged with was sleeping during the day. Iinstead of grilling Rotkin on where homeless people can park their bones or researching the shelter realities, Brown simply mouths authority propaganda.

Misleading and sloppy reporting includes such comments as “limitations on loitering”. There is no such crime; City Council under pressure from gentrification advocates and merchants intent on blaming homeless people for the economic depression has made more than 95% of the city’s sidewalks in business districts a crime to sit on, and peacefully spare change on. A huge expanse has also been made forbidden territory for political tabling or busqueing.

MY RESPONSE TO THE SENTINEL STORY ON THEIR WEBSITE

I wrote the following commentary in response to Brown’s Sentinel article which covers some more points (somewhat modified in this reprinting):

City Attorney Barisone’s arrogance strikes again. As with another recent case where he’s wasted over $100,000 of the City’s money (and intends to waste more), this one was a really bad call.(See http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci… )

Anna and Miguel were sleeping downtown during the day–an activity not forbidden by Burdick’s injunction. But when harassed by Officers Forbus and Winston, they refused to move (as was their right since they were doing nothing illegal). So maybe the two officers, out of resentment that their heavy-handed authority was being properly and caustically challenged, wrote phony tickets without probable cause to further intimidate the two.

The tickets “worked” in that the two defendants gathered together their possessions and left. They also provided grist for Sgt. Garner and Barisone’s stalking agenda: holding the two in contempt and jailing them.

However, sleeping during the day is not “setting up a campsite” and even a judge nervous about offending the merchants and politicians knows that. It may show the depth of Barisone’s arrogance (or perhaps his indifference–after all, he gets paid regardless) that he proceeded to drag these two into court on what were obviously false charges.

Further aggravating the situation for those of watching the trial was the fact that apparently the cops did not say they’d gotten any specific complaints about the two sleepers. It was just two thugs in uniform showing their power or currying favor with the city attorney–at what may ultimately be a significant cost to the city.

Exerting naked power against people–even poor people–can piss them off, especially when it’s illegal.

Volkman had no choice but to find the accused not guilty of contempt. Barisone should have known that from the getgo. Barisone and his two cop witnesses should be held liable for harassment as well as misuse of public funds.

Even those whose agenda is characterizing visible homeless people sparechanging downtown as “bums” should get together to dump these incompetents.

Ironically sleeping during the day is the only legal option for all homeless people in Santa Cruz since sleeping at night is banned under MC 6.36.010a.

So Anna and Miguel sleeping at 1:40 PM and 5:20 PM in the afternoon were actually trying to follow the law.

Present in the audience watching this farce were Mayor Rotkin, Councilmember Robinson, Julie Hende, and no doubt a number of other notable bigoted bureaucrats. Boy, bigotry is bad, but stupidity when mixed with bigotry is even more ludicrous. And making a public spectacle out of this makes them all a laughingstock. Which, given the abuse they’re trying to bring to homeless people, is what they deserve.

For more background go to http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/15/1… and http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/03/18/1… .

Those interested in real solutions should consider how much cheaper it would be to set up a campground and acknowledge the clear and present reality the immense shelter deficiency in Santa Cruz puts the City in very vulnerable spot legally and wretched position ethically.

TIME FOR ANOTHER KIND OF INJUNCTION?

The one positive thing to come out of this case (other than exposing the incompetence and/or corruption of the police and city attorney) is the revelation that police are now (perhaps under instruction from their supervisors) misusing section c of the camping ordinance–which says folks can be ticketed anytime if they’re “setting up a campsite with the intent of remaining overnight”.

This means there is no “safety zone” as Vice-Mayor Coonerty insisted several years ago, that allows homeless people to sleep during the day and so makes our city different from Los Angeles, San Diego, Laguna Beach, and other places that have had courts overturn their Sleeping Bans.

It may be time to go back to court with a lawsuit–and this time the Injunction will be against the City and the Police, and not against homeless sleepers.

COMING UP SOON: SINISTER SONGSTER CITATION TRIALS

Two homeless activists, a homeless musician, and an innocent passerby were falsely given $445 citations last January for singing political songs in front of the Bookshop Santa Cruz. Officer Shoenfeld refused to say herself whether the singing she heard at 3 PM on a Wednesday afternoon, was “unreasonably disturbing”. Because the singers refused to move, but did agree to sing more quietly (and stopped singing at Shoenfeld’s request), Sheofeld apparently orchestrated the citizen’s arrest from a resident of the St. George—Simon Reilly by falsely informing Reilly that the singers refused to sing more quietly.

Some of the story is told at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/01/20/18635743.php (“Sinister Street Singers Cited on Sidewalk”).

On March 25th at 1:30 PM in Dept. 10 (the basement of the County Building) the innocent bystander, a teacher named Michelle, will go to trial in the court of Commissioner Kim Baskett.

On March 26th at 10 AM, activist Becky Johnson will go to trial in Dept. 1 (first courtroom to your left as you pass the metal detector) in front of Judge Symons.

On April 27th, Robert “Blindbear” Facer is due to go to trial at 1:30 p.m. Dept. 10.

HUFF (Homeless United for Friendship &; Freedom) will likely be sponsoring an outdoor meal to encourage the community to have a bite to eat and then witness the proceedings in the hopes that these ridiculous charges will be dismissed, encouraging the police not to use citizens as catspaws.

Judge Volkman at the Injunction Contempt Hearing commended the audience for coming and the presence of the audience may have had a positive effect in helping him hold the line against a lawless city attorney whose main concern seems to be running disfavored homeless people out of town or out of sight.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

March 11, 2010

Supreme Judicial Court Rules Against Warrantless Search of Homeless Shelter

ACLU of Massachusetts applauds state Supreme Court decision prohibiting police searches of homeless shelters without occupants’ consent or a warrant.

BOSTON — Residents of homeless shelters must be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures under a ruling issued today by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in which the ACLU of Massachusetts filed a friend of the court brief. The case, Commonwealth v. Porter P., affirms that constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to residents of homeless shelters, just as they do to renters or students in dormitories.

The case resulted from the prosecution of a juvenile based on evidence obtained by police during a 2006 search of his locked room in a homeless shelter. The shelter manager gave consent to the search, but the occupants of the room — one of whom, a juvenile, was in the room at the time — did not.

In finding that the search violated the rights of the shelter’s occupants, the Court rejected the claim that there was less protection for transitional housing or that the shelter manager could consent to the search.

“Although transitional, the Court concluded that the room at the shelter was the family’s home and therefore entitled to the full protection of the state constitution. And, while recognizing that the shelter manager retained the right to enter the room to inspect the premises, she could not consent to a police search. That, the Court found, could only be done with a warrant,” said John Reinstein, legal director for the ACLU of Massachusetts.

The ACLU, along with the Committee for Public Counsel Services and other groups, filed a friend of the court brief arguing that endorsement of the search would consign the homeless to second-class status under the constitution.

“The Court has ruled today that homeless citizens are entitled to no less protection than those in our country who have housing,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “Especially in today’s tough economic times, which have driven more people into poverty, we must remember that the homeless still enjoy the same constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures as everyone else. The Constitution does not distinguish between rich and poor.”

For a copy of the SJC decision, see: http://www.aclum.org/legal/commonwealth_v_porter_p/sjc_decision.pdf

Read Full Post »

In D.C., Clergy & Homeless Allied in Fight for Separation of Church and State

City Should Not Fund Ministry That Compels Homeless Men To Attend Religious Services

Federal Lawsuit Challenges District Of Columbia’s Funding Of Religious Mission
ACLU-NCA Brings Lawsuit to Bar D.C. from Giving $12 Million to Mission
‘We are in the business of converting people to Christ.’

The ACLU of the National Capital Area (now the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital), Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit on Sept. 18, 2008, challenging the District of Columbia’s plan to grant more than $12 million in public property and cash to the Central Union Mission, a religious homeless shelter. For a copy of the complaint, please click here.

The Mission conditions shelter for the homeless on participation in Christian religious activity, including mandatory attendance at nightly church services. Its director has stated, “We are in the business of converting people to Christ. That’s what we do.” The Mission only employs Christians and requires volunteers to declare their church affiliation.

The lawsuit, Chane v. District of Columbia, was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Two of the plaintiffs are homeless men in the District of Columbia who do not go to the Mission because of its requirement that the homeless participate in religious services.

Six other plaintiffs are local taxpayers – including members of the clergy – who assert that the proposed gift of cash and property from the District of Columbia to the Mission will unconstitutionally support religious activities. The taxpayer plaintiffs include the Right Rev. John Bryson Chane, Episcopal Bishop of Washington, and the Rev. Joseph M. Palacios, a Roman Catholic priest and professor of sociology at Georgetown University.

“The Central Union Mission has a constitutional right to preach the gospel and recruit disciples for its faith, as it’s been doing for 124 years,” said Arthur B. Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the National Capital Area. “But it is a constitutional violation for the District of Columbia to support that preaching with millions of dollars of public money and public property.”

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, “Government should not fund a homeless shelter that requires residents to take part in religious services and discriminates in religious hiring. Religious activities should be funded with the voluntary donations of the faithful, not tax dollars.” 

The Council of the District of Columbia voted in July to pay $7 million in cash and convey a downtown property known as the Gales School to the Mission, in exchange for far less valuable property in the Petworth neighborhood. The transaction will result in a net financial gain for the Mission of more than $12 million. There is also no limit on what the Mission can do with the property later.  (The Mission is selling its current “shelter” property to a condo developer—for $7 million.)

“People who are homeless lack options for finding shelter and are particularly vulnerable to religious coercion,” said Alex J. Luchenitser, Senior Litigation Counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “The District should use its tax funds to ensure that sufficient shelter space exists for all who are homeless here, not just for those who are willing to go to church services every night.”

The lawsuit’s plaintiffs ask the court to block the transaction, or alternatively, to require the Mission either to agree not to engage in religious activities at the Gales School, or to pay fair market value for the property. The plaintiffs do not object to the shelter’s religious activities as long as they are not supported by government funds or property.

The lawsuit notes that the mission statement of Central Union Mission reads, “Our mission is to glorify God through proclaiming and teaching the gospel, leading people to Christ, developing disciples, and serving the needs of hurting people throughout the Washington Metropolitan Area.”

“The government shouldn’t use taxpayer dollars to underwrite religious indoctrination,” said Daniel Mach, Legal Director for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “This is a bad deal for the city, its homeless population and the U.S. Constitution.” 

http://www.aclu-nca.org/content.php?contentID=200&SID=1
http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/federal-lawsuit-challenges-district-columbias-funding-religious-mission

Read Full Post »

CSU to raise undergraduate fees 5 percent
lrosenhall@sacbee.com
Published Friday, Jun. 18, 2010

California State University trustees voted today to raise fees for undergraduate students by 5 percent.

The action takes effect this fall and increases fees by $204 a year for a full-time student, bringing the total cost for an education at a Cal State campus to almost $5,100 — not including books, room or board.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proposal for the 2010-11 budget assumed that CSU would raise student fees by 10 percent. An alternative proposal from Assembly Democrats suggested the 5 percent hike.

In going with the Assembly’s proposal to raise fees by 5 percent today, Cal State trustees acknowledged they were taking the risk that they may have to increase them again in a few months, depending on the outcome of the budget process in the Legislature.

Read Full Post »

[this was played on All Sides Now, a listener commentary of KMUD (http://www.kmud.org/)

Monday, June 14th WHILE a caring community member shared sandwiches with up to 100 hungry people in Redway- on the street- engaging in a responsible and constitutionally protected activity- the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department drove around photographing the people who were eating lunch. This is INTIMIDATION. This is profiling. There is no good reason for it.

People are scared when the Sheriff’s Department behaves this way because the Sheriff targets anyone who lives outside with very few resources. The Sheriff’s Department hunts people down while they are sleeping -out of sight- and Sheriff Deputies attempt to DISAPPEAR people who are, for instance, sitting under a tree for shade.

The cops call this “sweeping”, but in reality, they are PUNISHING people for their status as houseless, PROFILING people who appear to be carrying all of their possessions on their backs, and INTIMIDATING people out of their constitutional rights to travel, to assemble, to express themselves, and to be free of unreasonable invasion of privacy. The Sheriff’s Dept, and the County are also INTIMIDATING the same people out of their human right to LIVE, and to live without fear of government abuse and invasion into their lives. The photographing today is part of a County wide government campaign to harass, hurt, punish, and disappear people who have no shelter, or have very few resources.

There is no reason that people who are eating lunch in Redway in public- poor , rich, houseless, employed, unemployed, black, white, old, or young- should be subject to police intimidation and persecution.

We can do something about this. We can anticipate the Sheriff’s using those photos and the fear they instill to mess with people tonight or tomorrow. Please have your cameras and eyes and awareness ready on the streets of Redway and Garberville, and in the outlying areas. Please defend people, be present when and if the sheriff’s come around to further harass folks who live outside of capitalism’s graces. Do not allow your own prejudices to blind you from the need for persecuted communities to be protected. Sharing food is not a crime. Surviving without a roof is not criminal. Pay attention. Speak out. Let the Sheriff’s know that this behavior is unacceptable against ANY community.

Read Full Post »

http://MOXNews.com/
June 06, 2010 KIRO 7 News

KIRO 7 Eyewitness News:

Recent shootings involving Portland Police Officer prompted John Langley to ban cops from his business. …[John Langley, Cafe Owner] “They can go almost anywhere in town, pretty much anywhere but here.”

Langley says his cafe is frequented by the homeless, environmental and animal rights activists, and he says quote: ‘The job of the police includes persecuting houseless people, immigrants, and having them in this space does not feel right.’

Read Full Post »

This from Redwood Curtain CopWatch:Preserve and Return Property Taken by EPD today

From: redwood curtain copwatch  
Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:35 PM
Subject:
Preserve and Return Property Taken by EPD today
To: gnielsen@ci.eureka.ca.gov

 

Chief Nielsen,

J and R, a married couple, own the following property which was taken by EPD officer(s) between the hours of 3:00pm and 8:15pm today, June 8, 2010:

Grey and Blue Tent and Rainfly (new, cost $50.00)
Five blankets
1 large Stoker’s tobacco can
10 smaller cans of chewing tobacco
Full purple backpack
Full green backpack
Full long black bag with wheels
Two Mickey Mouse pillows
Two Flashlights
Prescription Medications (prescribed to R)
About 5-6 dollars in change
Clothes, feminine items, flag, other personal items
Orange and Black Daypack

 

You and I spoke at 8:46pm tonight about this matter. This email is further notice that the Eureka Police Department [EPD] must be sure to preserve the above property, belonging to J and R, and return it to them on request- swiftly, without hassle or intimidation. You assured me that no one would be retaliated against or intimidated when they go to retrieve their property.

 

It is my understanding (which I expressed to you on the phone) that EPD officers took the property of *other *people today. It is unconscionable and violates International Law and U.S. and California Constitutional Law for officers to steal, destroy, or otherwise violate the property/possessionsof people as they did today and do on a regular basis.A camping ordinance neither makes it legal nor humane for police to steal the only warmth, survival gear, and other personal possessions that people have.

 

I also informed you tonight over the phone that EPD officers tell many people when they take their possessions, that they will be trashing and/or destroying the possessions they are taking. Other times, the police do not hesitate to destroy tents and other survival gear right there in front of the owner(s), leaving them with nothing- no protection from the elements, etc. You indicated in our phone communication tonight that EPD inventories and puts into “property” the things EPD officers take from people.

 

Thank you for your immediate attention to the matter of preserving the property of J and R, and anyone else who’s possessions were taken today- and in the future. Likely, more people will be coming to claim property if it is stolen by EPD.

 

Sincerely,
Kimberly Starr

 

Note from Redwood Curtain CopWatch:  Names of people who’s property was stolen have been omitted to prevent retaliation from Eureka Police officers

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »