In 2006, embroiled in an ugly and polarizing controversy, Police Chief Jim Hyde abruptly left for greener pastures but not before firing some parting shots at the City of Davis and the Human Relations Commission, chaired at the time by my wife, Cecilia Escamilla-Greenwald.
Among the many inflammatory remarks he fired at Davis (remember, three years after taking a higher paying position in Antioch), he said: “Members of the Davis Police Department treated their station like a firehouse. They were conducting themselves in real life just like the fictional characters in Reno 911 acted in comedy.”
In the meantime, problems were mounting in Antioch, as Mr. Hyde continued to be a polarizing figure in the community.
While Davis settled back into a period of relative harmony and a lack of discord under the leadership of Police Chief Landy Black, the same could not be said for Antioch.
Chief Hyde’s department became the subject of a federal civil rights suit that alleged that, upon establishing a special unit in 2006, the Community Action Team (CAT) unit had focused their efforts on targeting Section 8 residents and specifically the majority of their actions have targeted African-American families.
Those families have been subjected to frequent searches of their homes, often without their consent and a warrant. They argue that this is a pattern of intimidation aimed less at reducing crime, and more at intimidation and convincing Section 8 residents to leave.
Upon filing the lawsuit, Brad Seligman from the Impact Fund, one of four groups working on the lawsuit on behalf of at least five community members in Antioch, said:
“There is no question that the City and its police department are targeting Section 8 families, particularly African-American recipients… The Police have a deliberate policy of coercion, intimidation and threats that target these Section 8 families and their landlords. The City’s goal is to force these families to move out of town.”
Chief Hyde, in the magazine article, was extremely dismissive of the suit.
“I asked the Chief about the federal litigation going on,” the article reported.
In response the chief apparently laughed and said, “Citizens worry that we’re going to be scared off because people are suing us. In fact, that’s one of the purposes of this kind of lawsuit; it’s in the interest of some segments of society to create conditions of anarchy.”
And then he added, “Getting sued is part of being a cop. You get used to it. I’ve had people try to shoot me, run me over, and then they sue me. I’ve stopped guys from killing their wives, and they’ve turned around and sued me. It comes with the territory.”
He explained that in our litigious society anybody can sue anybody for anything. The process of law works faster when the charges are criminal. Unfortunately, civil suits can drag on for years.
Now he is safely ensconced away in his enhanced public safety retirement, and few are likely laughing at the result of the mess left by Chief Hyde.
A press release from the Northern California ACLU reported Wednesday that the City of Antioch last night agreed to a settlement in Williams v. Antioch, a class action civil rights lawsuit brought by five African-American women.
“It’s a relief that this is finally resolved and that people will be watching to make sure Antioch doesn’t try to push out any other families like mine,” said Santeya Williams, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, and a former Antioch renter who lived in housing subsidized by Section 8.
“Antioch’s agreement to continuing federal court jurisdiction will ensure that all African-American Section 8 households in Antioch will be able to live in peace, free from harassment,” said attorney Brad Seligman of the Impact Fund and lead attorney on the case.
Mr. Seligman informed the Vanguard that the settlement still needs to be submitted to the court for its approval. There will be a notice sent out and a final hearing for approval of the settlement.
He expects this process to take several months.
According to the release, the city in settling agrees that it will not focus on African-American Section 8 recipients in its policing efforts, except when race is used to identify a specific suspect in a crime.
Antioch’s Police Department also agrees to send copies to the Impact Fund of any letters it sends to the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County regarding complaints about identified Section 8 recipients.
The lawsuit had charged that letters like these were part of an effort to push Section 8 families out of the community.
The settlement also provides for federal court oversight for three years.
The lawsuit was brought in July of 2008 after a report by nonprofit law firm and advocacy group Public Advocates Inc. and Bay Area Legal Aid found that, while Section 8 participants made up only five percent of Antioch households (one-fifth of all rental housing), two-thirds of the Community Action Team (CAT) unit investigations involved homes where voucher participants reside.
The report also showed that the brunt of investigations by the CAT unit fell disproportionately on African Americans: African Americans constitute only about 14 percent of Antioch households yet they are subject to two-thirds of all special unit investigations.
“In filing this case, we made a statement that profiling for ‘renting while black’ would not be tolerated,” said Alan Schlosser, Legal Director at the ACLU of Northern California. “With this settlement, the rights of our plaintiffs are protected and their voices heard.”
The case was set against the backdrop of shifting demographics tied to the nation’s real estate crisis. A just-released report from the Brookings Institution based on 2010 census data shows that the poor population in America’s suburbs rose by 53 percent, compared with 26 percent in cities. The pace was accelerated by the recession, with two-thirds of the new suburban poor added from 2007 to 2010.
“Suburban poverty is on the rise all over the country, and many communities are finding constructive responses that welcome their new residents rather than criminalize them,” said Richard Marcantonio, managing attorney at Public Advocates Inc. “With this settlement, the City of Antioch has taken an important step in that direction.”
The plaintiffs were represented by the Impact Fund, Public Advocates Inc., Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, with pro bono assistance from Covington & Burling LLP and Bingham McCutchen LLP.
As part of the terms of the settlement, the city agreed to pay $180,000 to be split among the five named plaintiffs, and $180,000 to cover attorney fees.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Do I assume that bc this was a settlement, no wrongdoing by the city was admitted?
I wanted to see the settlement agreement, but apparently until it gets finalized it is unavailable. I assume they did not admit wrongdoing, but putting yourself under Federal Court Supervision and changing practices spell that out.
[quote]I wanted to see the settlement agreement, but apparently until it gets finalized it is unavailable. I assume they did not admit wrongdoing, but putting yourself under Federal Court Supervision and changing practices spell that out.[/quote]
They city could have agreed to that just bc they did not have the money to continue an expensive legal fight. We will probably never know for sure. This is why I am not a huge fan of “settlements” like this, which have nondisclosure clauses and no admissions of fault – it leaves both sides claiming “victory”. You can almost guarantee both sides will spin it the way they want the public to view it…
ERM: It is possible the city agreed to a settlement to avoid further costs, but that is more likely to happen with a “nuisance suit.” Frankly, a $360k payout between plaintiffs and attorneys’ fees is too much to put it in the category of being a nuisance suit. That, coupled with an agreement to federal court supervision and a change in practices that really will handicap the police department for the time frame included in the settlement is an admission of wrongdoing without saying the words. Frankly, $360k is HUGE for a city of this size.
Finally, the fact that the federal court will supervise says an awful lot in and of itself.
Consider the situation regarding the prison overcrowding suit in CA that led to federal court supervision of prisoner levels and conditions. That level of supervision, as is the case now in Antioch, is a burden on the federal court that the court would not take on just because the parties want to settle it that way. Federal judges don’t take on civil rights complainants request for public agency supervision unless there’s some basis and some need for same.
Tough to say what happened here for sure Elaine, but I’ve seen a couple of these”CAT” team searches here in Sacramento, and they were both “no warrant” searches without consent . In one case a masked officer with an assault rifle ripped a screened door off of its hinges because he couldn’t open it with his gloved left hand . Officers manhandled tenants, including young children and women, cursing and threatening the whole time . In one instance when I told another masked officer that I thought he was out of line, he turned on me with his baton poking me in the sternum, and told me to back the f… off. This, by the way was, probably someone I had fueled up next to at the city pumps a few hundred times ! Government should not expect civil behavior from people when their agents act in such a manner .
[i]”Frankly, $360k is HUGE for a city of this size.”[/i]
No, it is not. Trial attorneys are experts at settlement extortion using the byzantine process of the civil courts and lawsuits. $360k is a drop in a bucket compared to what the city might have otherwise spent defending itself… especially when the plaintiff attorney is contingency and is underemployed with time on his hands. There is no finding of guilty or innocent in these cases… the settlements are simple a cost-benefit decision similar to a kidnapping and ransom demand.
The city’s liability insurance covers most of this settlement. The insurance company would have had to approve it.
Jeff Boone:
I disagree with you. What is the total budget of the city? How many police officers’ salaries could they cover with $360k? How much will this settlement cost them in increased insurance costs due to the amount of the payout? This is not just a $25k slip and fall. I, for one, would not want to be a tax payer in a jurisdiction that has increased costs passed on under any financial scenario (higher insurance rates for the city or payouts from city coffers that must be balanced during these difficult financial times) due to the inappropriate police action that was the basis for the claims.
I might agree with your point if it were not for the other aspects of the settlement.
No city would want its police department under the watchful eye of a federal judge. No police department would want to have to ensure that they not target a particular race in Section 8 housing since it will necessarily decrease many types of investigative and enforcement efforts by law enforcement in the Section 8 housing.
Also I have rarely seen a city submit to Federal Court or any court Supervision, so they idea that they did to merely get out of a frivolous lawsuit doesn’t gibe.
[quote]”
In a statement released Wednesday, Antioch police and city officials denied any wrongdoing.
“This lawsuit was an attempt to take community policing – neighbors and police working together to build safer neighborhoods – and portray it as an elaborate and sinister conspiracy,” said City Attorney Lynn Nerland. She added that Antioch’s programs “have always been fair, unbiased and focused on addressing criminal, drug and nuisance activities in our neighborhoods.”[/quote]
From the testimony of an expert in this case:
[quote]Because African Americans inhabit almost half of Section 8 houses, a CAT focus on Section 8 will necessarily disproportionately impact African Americans.
In 2006, African Americans represented 45.6% of Section 8 households in Antioch (670 of 1470), but 66.7% of CAT Section 8 locations (46 of 69).[/quote]
Now here, as usual, is where political correctness prevents a further breakdown analysis. The facts are that blacks are overrepresented in crime. This has been true for a long time:
[quote]”In 1918 the Bureau of the Census reported that blacks, who made up only 11 percent of the U.S. population, accounted for 22 percent of the inmates of prisons, jails, and reform schools (U.S. Department of Commerce 1918, p. 438).[/quote]
Of course this is before the civil rights movement, but it is interesting that the black trend for criminal representation is about the same today (about double).
I’m not arguing cause here. There are plenty of theories for why blacks are overrepresented. Law enforcement and judicial bias is only one of many, but it is the only one our hyper-sensitive politically correct modern society seems to be able to talk about. 70% of black children being born into a single parent household might have a lot to do with the overrepresentation, but that points to root causes that raise the hackles of the PC police.
The fact is that Antioch police would only place houses on the CAT list after they received citizen complaints. So, if any group is guilty of racial profiling it is the citizens of Antioch.
“So, if any group is guilty of racial profiling it is the citizens of Antioch. “
Then justice was done, since they’re the ones paying for it !
[quote]In a statement released Wednesday, Antioch police and city officials denied any wrongdoing.
“This lawsuit was an attempt to take community policing – neighbors and police working together to build safer neighborhoods – and portray it as an elaborate and sinister conspiracy,” said City Attorney Lynn Nerland. She added that Antioch’s programs “have always been fair, unbiased and focused on addressing criminal, drug and nuisance activities in our neighborhoods.”[/quote]
Thanks Jeff, for proving my point. You just cannot conclude much of anything from this settlement, bc both sides will spin it to bolster their position, and I’m sure the settlement has nondisclosure clauses and no admission of wrongdoing. Very unsettling bc of the serious nature of the complaint. biddlin’s experience is a case in point. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Again, this is why I am not a big fan of these types of settlements, bc ultimately IT SETTLES NOTHING, and often allows the bad behavior to continue. Altho in this case at least there will be court supervision, so I would assume that will put a stop to some of it, but not necessarily all…
Since the residents of Antioch made the complaints, I’m not sure what better solution there would have been rather than settle the case.
Here is an article that does a good job explaining the situation: [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/09/us/09housing.html?pagewanted=print[/url]
Quotes from that article:
[quote]”From 2003 to 2005, the number of Section 8 households in Antioch grew by 50 percent, to about 1,500 from 1,000. Many new residents are African-American; Antioch’s black population has grown to about 20 percent, from 3 percent in 1990.
Chief James Hyde of the Antioch Police Department denied that his officers routinely asked whether tenants were Section 8 recipients and said that the police department did not have information about which homes were on federal assistance. But Chief Hyde also said that the local housing authority was not meeting its obligation to screen tenants properly, and that as his department focused on nuisance issues, the police had become a de facto enforcement arm of the federal government.
“Other cities have come asking us for guidance,” Chief Hyde said.
Sociologists have long claimed that leaving behind high-crime, low-employment neighborhoods for the middle-class suburbs buoys the fortunes of impoverished tenants. An article in the July/August edition of The Atlantic Monthly, however, cited findings by researchers at the University of Memphis that crime in Memphis appeared to migrate with voucher recipients. More broadly, a 2006 Georgia Institute of Technology study found that every time a neighborhood experienced three foreclosures per 100 owner-occupied properties in a year, violent crime increased by approximately 7 percent.
While total crime in Antioch declined by 15 percent in the first three months of this year, compared to the same period in 2007, violent crime increased by about 16 percent, according to city statistics. Robberies and assaults accounted for most of that rise.
In an incident report filed with the Antioch Police Department, Natalie and Darin Rouse complained of constant problems with gang members’ blaring car stereos and under-age drinking on the street. In a written account, they blamed “gross community overdevelopment, affirmative action loopholes and incompetent state government management of federal affordable housing programs” for the problems.
“They kept harassing me until I was off parole,” Mr. Coleman said.”[/quote]
Note that Mr. Coleman… that guy on parole… was one of the plaintiffs.
I have to wonder how Davis residents might act in a similar situation. We seem compelled to go to great lengths to protect our property values… why demoize others for doing the same?
Jeff
I do not see any attempt to “demonize” here. It is completely legitimate to question the appropriateness of the means used to “protect property values.” I think it is one thing to protect property values by consistently supporting schools, being willing to pay for our parks, green belts and recreational services, and promote our downtown and other city and university attractions, and the use of questionable, if not brutal policing tactics.
Jeff, one of the reasons Blacks are overrepresented in the prisons is discrimination. All the research I have seen says Whites use drugs as much as or more than Blacks, but imprisonments for drug use are disproportionately Black.
In fairness, some argue this is because White drug use and Black drug use take place in different locales, but I am certain if the system was such that Whites were jailed more often than Blacks, the system would be changed.
Also, some years ago the LA Times reported that there were two systems for punishing drug use in California, the federal system and the state system. While Blacks were much more frequently tried int he more punitive system, Whites were almost never tried in the more punitive system.
While I don’t have the references on hand for what I am stating here, I will try to find references if you desire. However, I do have a reference for a “This American Life” public radio program called “perfect evidence”:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/210/perfect-evidence. This program recounts the arrest of some innocent Blacks for the murder of a White female (medical student?) in Chicago. Turns out the defendants were tried separately and the “expert witness” gave different testimony about semen findings in different trials, lied at least once. At the end the men are freed from DNA evidence, but the story ends with a newspaper report that despite repeated police and prosecutor misconduct, they found no evidence of any civil, criminal, or administrative punishment of that misconduct. Of course when a Black prosecutor took liberties in pursuing conviction against elite White athletes in North Carolina, he was prosecuted. Maybe he deserved prosecution, but (almost?) all those who have mis-prosecuted Blacks have gone free.
In the “perfect evidence” case both the falsely convicted and true criminals were Black, but how destructive is it to a family and a community to have an innocent person convicted and a guilty person go free?
In fairness I must add that the second case discussed in Perfect Evidence is of a teenage boy duped into believing that he might have killed his own sister and not remember having done it.
Still, I believe these forms of prosecution of the innocent happen much more often in Black communities. I also believe that in some areas Blacks are much more likely to be convicted and imprisoned than Whites committing the same crimes. In fact, I believe judicial discrimination is the most destructive anti-Black discrimination at this point, although I can refer you to field studies showing considerable anti-Black employment discrimination when you send out job applications some of which appear to be from Blacks and some of which appear to be from Whites.
How much would the Black community be boosted by ending judicial discrimination and employment discrimination. I don’t know, but whatever the amount, ending this discrimination is just.