|
A no brainer. While the Stanek agreement may have raped the racial profiling bill; St. Paul has taken some of the major recommendations and put them in place. Minneapolis Council members and Mayor should have been the lead on this one. Now, we must at least follow, knowing Minneapolis residents tend to be overrepresented in the corrections system... that starts with an encounter with our police department( that has been rumored to be a little biased). To remove the brand off the entire police department we must be committed to studying ( using institutions that are trusted by the vested parties), regulating and putting policies into place to insure the safety of the citizens of Minneapolis...this is an urgent matter. To protect and Serve WHO?!! What are we doing Minneapolis representatives? To all Media: Recently, City Council
candidate for Minneapolis’ 3rd Ward, Makeda Zulu-Gillespie met with
other community activists to send a message of outrage to the recent passing of
the Stanek amendment. The 3rd
Ward consists of an average of 63% people of color, 74% west and 52% east of
the Mississippi River. The Stanek amendment passed Friday, June 1, 2001 is an insult to the citizens of Minnesota and more immediately Minnesotans of color. In my opinion the proposed amendment would directly target persons of color allowing for unreasonable searches of cars with little or no cause. And although this amendment will effect people of color to a much higher degree than other Minnesotans, it is the attrition of the of the founding principles of our state that will ultimately effect all of her citizens regardless of color, religious background, economic status, gender or affection. It is clearly stated in the Minnesota Bill of Rights, Article 1 Section 10 that ”Unreasonable search and seizures [are] prohibited. The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized.” This is not difficult language to interpret. Though the supreme court has interpreted the article quite loosely. Racial profiling is an aberration of the foundational laws that have long governed this state. Because law enforcement agencies have been given license to ignore the base of the laws they enforce, citizens’ rights have been violated. Refusal to address this desecration of Minnesotans rights with the toughest accountability threatens the safety of every Minnesotan.
Why is the amendment a slap in the face? No mandatory data collection for traffic stops- Eight other states require statewide data collection which achievees the following critical objectives: Racial profiling is not effective policing nor is it equal protection. It promotes discussion as opposed to accusations. It allows a flexible process in the deployment of police resources. It begins to change behavior of line officers and supervisors. Measuring police activity is a critical first step toward effective management. No information card giving the officers badge number and a person to contact if you feel you have been violated. This is to reassure the public that law enforcement is making a serious effort to improve the accountability of law enforcement officers for racial profiling and to change the behavior of officers who might be profiling. The Complaint procedure is gutted. The Racial Profiling committee does not have the authority to review and make recommendations about questionable law enforcement investigations of racial profiling. The complainant notification requirements are eliminated. Complainants will not receive a copy of the notice the POST board sends to law enforcement, a copy of the videotape and a description of the complaint process. No
commitment or incentive for state patrol to collect data. Length of data collection is one year instead of ongoing. This greatly limits the ability of law enforcement chiefs to use data collection as a management tool. The racial profiling task force recommended a bill with measurable outcomes, a win for each party involved, that originally asked for one million dollars. This proposal was whittled down to a bill that accomplishes nothing for vested parties and cost taxpayers four million. What does this mean for the Third ward? With an extremely high population of people of color (63% people of color, 74% west and 52% east of the Mississippi River), racial profiling has a devastating effect on police/community relations. While the State may not recognize the safety of all of its residents as a priority Minneapolis can begin to hold all citizens in high regard …follow St. Paul’s lead by enforcing the recommendations of the Racial Profiling task force that included communities of color and law enforcement - who had begun a partnership contained with seeds of trust and true communication. The threat of one person’s right to be secure is a threat to us all. |
Title: Press Release:
