Stop-and-frisk deal: shame on ACLU and Chicago, say anti-violence activists

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/14/shame-aclu-chicago-stop-frisk-we-charge-genocide

Version 0 of 1.

Anti-violence activists in Chicago are criticizing what they call a “disgusting” deal between the city and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois over requests for independent evaluations into stop-and-frisk tactics used by the police department.

Related: Chicago police department agrees to independent stop-and-frisk evaluations

The deal announced on 7 August calls for more officer training and wider disclosure of data collected from the stops, and came as a surprise to activists who had been working on a separate agreement.

We Charge Genocide, a group that works to end police violence, had been working with the ACLU, the city and local politicians over the past year on a similar agreement called the Stops, Transparency, Oversight and Protections (Stop) Act.

The group had planned to introduce their ordinance with the support of alderman Proco Joe Moreno and Roderick Sawyer during a city council meeting on 28 July.

However at the meeting a few weeks ago, We Charge Genocide says, Mayor Rahm Emanuel approached the two aldermen who supported the ordinance and asked them to wait until a later date to file because the city was exploring changes to relevant police department policies.

Last Friday, the ACLU and the city of Chicago announced they had reached an independent agreement that would twice a year produce public reports to show if the police departments are meeting its legal requirements in regards to stop-and-frisk encounters.

We Charge Genocide and the aldermen – both caught off-guard by the announcement – had been left out of these negotiations, sparking a backlash.

#ShameOnACLUIL for giving cover to the Chicago Police Department & for your unethical corrupt actions.

“The CPD’s agreement with the ACLU is wholly unacceptable,” alderman Moreno said in a statement on Thursday. “The public has a right to know who is being stopped and frisked and how often these tactics are being used.”

Activists with We Charge Genocide argued in a letter after the announcement that the city favored the “safer”, more mainstream ACLU over a more grassroots movement like Black Lives Matter.

“[This] settlement represents just one of many efforts by city officials across the country attempting to co-opt our movement by engaging with less threatening groups,” the letter states.

Under the ACLU agreement, all data collected from stop-and-frisks will be only accessible to the police department; former federal magistrate judge Arlander Keys, who is acting as a consultant; and the ACLU itself.

This data will be used to produce two yearly reports that will show if these stops were constitutional or not, which will be the primary public records and can be accessed through the Freedom of Information Act.

Critics argue the people with access to the collected information on the stops are acting as “middle men” between the public and the data.

“Being randomly stopped and frisked is a traumatizing and unfair experience,” organizer Page May said. “Collecting and publishing data is the first step in the road to eradicating this egregious harm.”

May and others plan to go forward with their original ordinance by presenting it in the September city council meeting – with or without the support of the ACLU or Chicago’s mayor.

The Stop Act, they argue, is still tremendously important in their fight for police accountability and making sure there is better transparency in regards to how police interact with citizens.

Within the Stop Act, all data and information would be made public and more easily accessible throughout the year. It proposes that during a stop-and-frisk encounter, when police conduct a stop they will have to give the citizen a receipt of being stopped and frisked, allowing them to challenge it in the future.

The architects of the act used the recently released New York City stop-and-frisk reporting process as a framework, which requires all data collected from stop-and-frisks be published quarterly on the city’s website for easy public access.

Its authors say these types of measures will better help at least better help determine if these stops were racially discriminatory and fairly used.

The ACLU of Chicago said it is “confused” by the continued efforts of We Charge Genocide and other critics of last week’s deal, “especially since our organization offered a number of suggestions we hoped improved the Stop ordinance,” said Edwin Yonka, director of communications and public policy at ACLU of Illinois.

Yonka says that this agreement with the Chicago police department resolved demands made before the construction of the Stop Act.

“We Charge Genocide always knew that we were pursuing differing strategies,” he continued. “[And] most important, no single effort, including our agreement, is the end of this movement or advocacy around this issue, nor should it be.”