CCC Letter Mayor Hodges and Mpls City Council
Post on 21-Nov-2015
COALITION FOR CRITICAL CHANGE, Twin Cities
January 5, 2015
To: Mayor Betsy Hodges and members of the Minneapolis City Council
Re: Follow-up to Open Letters on Minneapolis Police Department Policies and Practices
This is a follow-up to the Open Letter of September 2014, (signed by hundreds of concerned
community members, including many involved in the Coalition for Critical Change), and the
Mayors Response of October 2014. Both documents are attached as Appendices to this letter.
While we appreciate the Mayors response to the concerns noted in the original letter, the Coalition for Critical Change is requesting additional action and follow-up on the initial requests.
In light of recent events and budget decisions, this letter is addressed to members of both the City
Council and the Mayor, as the following requests will require joint action.
Many of these items can be immediately enacted; others require long term planning and a
movement towards a vision of public safety that does not rely on more policing, but, instead, on
empowered communities. All speak to the stated city goals of transparency and accountability in
police - community relations, and to the goals of equity as well. The over-policing of our
communities of color is a significant contributor to unequitable outcomes in multiple social
arenas, including education and employment. This foundational disparity must be addressed for
meaningful - and long overdue - progress to be made with regard to our abysmal national ranking
on matters of racial disparity.
Our original requests are re-iterated below along with our additional calls for action:
1) Quarterly Reports
We would request quarterly progress reports to the community on issues such as
increasing diversity within MPD, the rates of low-level arrests, the number and types of
police misconduct complaints, and the number of police misconduct lawsuits being settled
along with dollar amounts.
We are reiterating our request for quarterly public reports. These reports and the related data
should collected and publically disseminated as part of the regular business of a transparent and
accountable Police Department. The availability of this data should not be contingent upon the
receipt of organizational or individual data requests.
The reports should detail:
progress towards increasing diversity within MPD
the number and types of police misconduct complaints
number of police misconduct lawsuits being settled, including with dollar amounts
the rates, locations and demographics of low-level arrests
Since our original letter, the issue of extreme racial disparity in low-level arrests has been high-
lighted in an ACLU Report on Minnesota. (See Appendices). The data revealed that between
2004 and 2012, an African American individual was, on average:
11.5 times more likely to be arrested than a white individual for marijuana possession;
8.86 times more likely to be arrested than a white individual for disorderly conduct;
7.54 times more likely to be arrested than a white individual for vagrancy; and
16.39 times more likely to be arrested than a white juvenile for curfew/loitering
That these results are unacceptable is an extreme under-statement. While we appreciate the City
Councils directive to the MPD with respect to documenting arrest data for 2010-14, past disparities are already well documented and have been for more than a decade. What is immediately needed is the collection and evaluation of current arrest data and police practices.
Consequently, we are further requesting the following information and attendant action:
Additional quarterly reporting of data on low-level arrests including arrests by race/ethnicity, gender, age, geographical areas and the number of arrests of
juveniles that occurred on school property. When possible, and in conjunction with
the Hennepin County Courts, costs and court outcomes of all low level arrests
should be accounted for.
Public transparency as to MPD policies and directives with regard to low-level arrests. If the MPD is pursuing a policy of attention to low-level arrests, (be it called
broken windows, public order policing, community-oriented policing, or any
other euphemism), this should be clear to the public, and open to public comment,
debate, and revision/cessation.
A public clarification and review of MPD practices with respect to the enforcement of the Minneapolis City Ordinance on Loitering (385.50. - Loitering.) with attention
to the state guidelines on Racial Profiling (Minnesota Statutes 626.8471).
A repeal of the Minneapolis City Ordinance on Lurking (385.80. - Lurking.).
2) Body Cameras
We would request an opportunity for community input on policies surrounding the use of
body cameras by MPD. Although many of us support the use of body cameras, we are well
aware of the fact that many jurisdictions that use body cameras continue to face allegations
of police misconduct and brutality due to cameras being turned off during optimal times,
storage of data, and interpretation of said data.
The issue of community input on body camera policy is even more urgent in light of the fact that
the City of Minneapolis has now approved more than $1 million budget dollars for the
implementation of a body camera program. It is more urgent too, in light of the NYC non-
indictment of Daniel Pantaleo for the videotaped killing of Eric Garner via a choke-hold that had
been banned for more than 20 years. This makes clear, again, that the existence of body camera
footage is no guarantee that police will be held accountable in use of force cases. So too does the
recent dispute, closer to home in Duluth, over the public release of body camera footage of an
officer involved shooting.
In light of this, we are again requesting:
Publication of results of the body camera pilot study as soon as possible, with the opportunity for public comment and input.
The immediate development, with community input and Department of Justice guidance, of a clear set of procedural guidelines for the use of cameras as well as the
collection and storage of recorded data. Guidelines should also clarify the intended
use of body cameras to document citizen-police encounters as opposed to more
generalized surveillance of public gatherings or protests which are protected by the
To the extent that body cameras collect evidence that may be used by citizens in cases against the police, this data and the integrity of said data should be insured by
its storage with an independent third party, potentially a reconstituted, elected and
independent Civilian Review Board.
3) Structure/Culture of MPD
We would ask that drastic steps be taken to address the culture within MPD that leads to
negative police/community relations.
While we appreciate the steps being taken to increase officer diversity and enhance training,
issues within the Department are systemic in nature, not just the result of a few bad apples. Community policing does not mean policing communities. It means changing the systemic
relationship between police and community, so that the community knows their needs are
tantamount and will be protected and served.
This requires additional steps some of which have been outlined above and so we also request:
Expanded police officer training to teach community policing principles and restorative justice techniques. This should be required of all officers, not just
those recruited as part of the CSO Program.
Use of Restorative Justice to police adults as the Department of Justice proposes.
Reduce policing of and arrests for low-level offenses.
Develop a clear MPD position prohibiting racial profiling that addresses both individual officer-citizen encounters and departmental patrol patterns that rely on
geography as a proxy for race and class
Reinstate the Civilian Review Board, this time as an independent elected body that represents all citizens and is imbued with the full legal powers required to
Develop Departmental expectations and employment guidelines that police live in the communities they serve.
Demilitarize. Opt out of the acquisition of military equipment via the National Defense Authorization Act of 1997
Begin the budgetary process of divestment from the police and reinvestment in education, housing, youth services and community programs, employment/job
opportunities, health/wellness services, and community initiatives that center
Thank you for your consideration. We will be publically releasing this letter, and look forward to
your response. We would ask that you set aside part of the January 21 Public Safety, Civil Rights
and Emergency Management committee meeting agenda to discuss this with members of the
CCC. We will also extending an invitation soon for you to attend a community forum where you
and the public may further engage this discussion.
For questions regarding these requests, please contact, on behalf of the Coalition for Critical
Nancy A. Heitzeg, Ph.D. (612) 991- 0569 firstname.lastname@example.org
Nekima Levy-Pounds, Esq. (612) 210-3734 email@example.com
Rose M. Brewer, Ph.D. firstname.lastname@example.org
Anne Winkler-Morey, Ph.D. email@example.com