by Laura Conway
The fifteen-year anniversary of September 11, 2001, is a good time to reflect on the wanton loss of life – American, Iraqi, Afghani, etc. It is also a good time to reflect upon the calculated use of a “state of emergency” to broaden state authority at the expense of civil liberties. This September as President Obama extends provision 7463, the state of emergency declared by George W. Bush granting him sweeping powers over the military without the consent of congress, civil liberties are also in danger right here in Denver with the city’s recent Temporary Directive. Just as President Bush used the idea of an ever-present terror to push forward his administration’s hawkish agenda, the city of Denver is using the idea of a “heroin epidemic” to justify an unconstitutional directive aimed at keeping homeless people out of public parks.
Last month Denver City Parks and Recreation unveiled a temporary directive that is being rightly called out as a flagrant violation of the United States Constitution. The directive states that a police officer may suspend a person from the Cherry Creek Greenway or any Denver city park if the person is engaged in illegal drug activity. It sounds reasonable; however, upon further investigation the directive reveals itself as an unconstitutional back alley where police can discriminate against whomever they choose. Using the language of emergency, the Parks and Rec department calls for this directive in response to an “epidemic of heroin use.” The city then notes that “[t]he Cherry Creek bike trail and several of our Downtown parks have become hot spots for drug sales and use.” In response to this supposed epidemic, if a police officer deems that a person is engaged in illegal drug activity, they may ban them from the park via a suspension notice. That person does not need to be guilty of any crime in order to be suspended from the park. The city writes, “The person subject to the Suspension Notice need not be charged, tried or convicted of any crime, infraction, or administrative citation in order for the Suspension Notice to be issued or effective.”
Essentially, an officer may for any reason and at their discretion, issue a suspension to certain people who may not thereafter enter the park. The penalty for violation of this directive can be up to $1000 and one year in jail. What this means in practice is that a police officer may ban any person from the park that they decide looks like they are using drugs. If they return they could be put in jail. At that point they would never have been convicted or found guilty of drug use nor been given due process for using illegal drugs. Instead, through this duplicitous “directive” they will be found guilty of trespassing on public property. By issuing a “directive” and suspension “notice,” the park avoids due process and the presumption of innocence, two of the sacred principles of our criminal justice system. Many, such as Henry Grabar from Slate, have pointed out that banning certain activities from parks is constitutional, while banning certain people is not. Because Denver is using civil order to discriminate against people, they avoid the unconstitutionality of banning people from parks through punitive or criminal orders. It is a very slimy way to get out of an ethical shitstorm.
The ethical and constitutional ramifications of this directive are many, none of them palatable. First and foremost, it gives the police absolute power to determine who is and is not allowed in our public parks. As has become clear over the last few years, the police force are often deeply biased against minorities and the poor. Instead of implementing policies aimed at mitigating this bias, the city of Denver has decided to arm the Denver police with the tools to discriminate at will. The Denver police, in fact, are being asked to discriminate against people who look like illegal drug users or drug dealers. The city of Denver, in contempt of the constitution and basic equality, and after the shootings of Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, and many more, has given the Denver police the role of judge, lawyer, and jury.
So why would the city issue a temporary directive to ban drug use from city parks? Is it not already a criminal offense to use illegal drugs anywhere in the city? What is, of course, not legal is to ban certain people from parks based on their race, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status – that would be discrimination. Banning homeless people from the city parks is neither legal nor constitutional, however, Denver is trying to do just that. Which leads us to the crux of this ordinance. Of course anyone following Denver city politics can read the subtext here, the police are being asked, again, by the city of Denver to clear away people who do not have homes. This is not the first such directive in United States cities. Both Portland and Seattle have similar laws aimed at keeping certain people out of parks. They are popularly called “park exclusion laws.” According to the ACLU, half the people who were actually banned from Seattle parks were homeless and almost half were people of color. Denver spent a good part of 2016 removing homeless people from visible places in the city in the so-called “homeless sweeps.” When they asked the police officers “move on to where?” the answer was often and unofficially, go to the river. Now they are being told again through a different policy – move on. The sweeps caused national attention and calls of discrimination, therefore, it is no coincidence that the city of Denver is looking for a different way to target this group – this time under the guise of “drug users,” a term which the average civilian has even less sympathy for. The city of Denver’s policy is to use every legal means to persecute the homeless population by criminalizing their survival, continuously confiscating their belongings, and shuffling them from one location to the next, all the while never seriously considering any long-term housing plan. The message is: Denver is for the affluent. If you are not affluent, you are not a citizen and public space does not belong to you. It doesn’t matter where you go, but leave Denver.
Last month Denver City Parks and Recreation unveiled a temporary directive that is being rightly called out as a flagrant violation of the United States Constitution. The directive states that a police officer may suspend a person from the Cherry Creek Greenway or any Denver city park if the person is engaged in illegal drug activity. It sounds reasonable; however, upon further investigation the directive reveals itself as an unconstitutional back alley where police can discriminate against whomever they choose. Using the language of emergency, the Parks and Rec department calls for this directive in response to an “epidemic of heroin use.” The city then notes that “[t]he Cherry Creek bike trail and several of our Downtown parks have become hot spots for drug sales and use.” In response to this supposed epidemic, if a police officer deems that a person is engaged in illegal drug activity, they may ban them from the park via a suspension notice. That person does not need to be guilty of any crime in order to be suspended from the park. The city writes, “The person subject to the Suspension Notice need not be charged, tried or convicted of any crime, infraction, or administrative citation in order for the Suspension Notice to be issued or effective.”
Essentially, an officer may for any reason and at their discretion, issue a suspension to certain people who may not thereafter enter the park. The penalty for violation of this directive can be up to $1000 and one year in jail. What this means in practice is that a police officer may ban any person from the park that they decide looks like they are using drugs. If they return they could be put in jail. At that point they would never have been convicted or found guilty of drug use nor been given due process for using illegal drugs. Instead, through this duplicitous “directive” they will be found guilty of trespassing on public property. By issuing a “directive” and suspension “notice,” the park avoids due process and the presumption of innocence, two of the sacred principles of our criminal justice system. Many, such as Henry Grabar from Slate, have pointed out that banning certain activities from parks is constitutional, while banning certain people is not. Because Denver is using civil order to discriminate against people, they avoid the unconstitutionality of banning people from parks through punitive or criminal orders. It is a very slimy way to get out of an ethical shitstorm.
The ethical and constitutional ramifications of this directive are many, none of them palatable. First and foremost, it gives the police absolute power to determine who is and is not allowed in our public parks. As has become clear over the last few years, the police force are often deeply biased against minorities and the poor. Instead of implementing policies aimed at mitigating this bias, the city of Denver has decided to arm the Denver police with the tools to discriminate at will. The Denver police, in fact, are being asked to discriminate against people who look like illegal drug users or drug dealers. The city of Denver, in contempt of the constitution and basic equality, and after the shootings of Tamir Rice, Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, and many more, has given the Denver police the role of judge, lawyer, and jury.
So why would the city issue a temporary directive to ban drug use from city parks? Is it not already a criminal offense to use illegal drugs anywhere in the city? What is, of course, not legal is to ban certain people from parks based on their race, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status – that would be discrimination. Banning homeless people from the city parks is neither legal nor constitutional, however, Denver is trying to do just that. Which leads us to the crux of this ordinance. Of course anyone following Denver city politics can read the subtext here, the police are being asked, again, by the city of Denver to clear away people who do not have homes. This is not the first such directive in United States cities. Both Portland and Seattle have similar laws aimed at keeping certain people out of parks. They are popularly called “park exclusion laws.” According to the ACLU, half the people who were actually banned from Seattle parks were homeless and almost half were people of color. Denver spent a good part of 2016 removing homeless people from visible places in the city in the so-called “homeless sweeps.” When they asked the police officers “move on to where?” the answer was often and unofficially, go to the river. Now they are being told again through a different policy – move on. The sweeps caused national attention and calls of discrimination, therefore, it is no coincidence that the city of Denver is looking for a different way to target this group – this time under the guise of “drug users,” a term which the average civilian has even less sympathy for. The city of Denver’s policy is to use every legal means to persecute the homeless population by criminalizing their survival, continuously confiscating their belongings, and shuffling them from one location to the next, all the while never seriously considering any long-term housing plan. The message is: Denver is for the affluent. If you are not affluent, you are not a citizen and public space does not belong to you. It doesn’t matter where you go, but leave Denver.
RSS Feed
