Cam Gordon: Lurking law does more harm than good

There are few convictions, but the arrests are costly to the city and damaging to residents.

By CAM GORDON

Last update: June 19, 2008 - 6:46 PM

Today the Minneapolis City Council will consider the repeal of an ordinance that states in its entirety: "Lurking. No person, in any public or private place, shall lurk, lie in wait or be concealed with intent to commit any crime or unlawful act."

While on its face this law is clearly vague, overbroad and possibly unconstitutional, its connection to race and class disparities may be a little harder to see. Consider the following:

Of the 167 people arrested or cited for lurking in Minneapolis in 2006, 133 of them, or more than 80 percent, were people of color. In 2007, of the 231 people arrested in lurking incidents, 70 percent were people of color.

In 2006, the Council on Crime and Justice published a report that examined the complex, sometimes subtle but often far-reaching effects of racial disparities in the criminal-justice system. Minneapolis' lurking law was highlighted: "The racial disparity is larger for low level offenses where police officer discretion is greatest. In 2001 the equivalent of one out of four Black residents were cited for such low level offenses as disorderly conduct, loitering and lurking. For whites, the number was one in 60."

Unsuccessful prosecution seems to be the norm for our lurking cases. Of the 136 adults arrested for lurking last year, only 77 went on to be tried by the city attorney's office. Of those, only 19 were convicted. In other words, 85 percent of adults arrested for lurking in 2007 have not been convicted. This is the worst conviction rate of any of our so-called "livability crimes" and is a far cry from the city's goal of increasing the conviction rates on livability crimes to 65 percent.

The costs of these unsuccessful prosecutions are harder to measure. Two nights in jail cost taxpayers $230 per person. Since 2003 we have spent at least $184,000 just processing the tickets involved, and no one has even begun to estimate the much-higher costs to the police department, attorney's office, public defenders and community corrections.

While the lurking ordinance rarely leads to conviction and consumes precious public-safety dollars, it also does something more subtle and more costly to the future health of our city: It increases the racial and economic disparities that plague us. Having a lurking arrest on their record increases the barriers that keep our fellow Minneapolitans locked in poverty and homelessness. It makes it harder to get a job, harder to find a home and less likely that one will get the educational and health services needed to be a successful and productive participant in society.

A study of the 100 largest cities in the United States found that 87 do not prohibit lurking at all. Five prohibit it only with concealed weapons, two refer to it in their loitering ordinances and only two -- Minneapolis and Grand Rapids -- have distinct "lurking" ordinances.

It is time to repeal Minneapolis' lurking ordinance. A repeal of this ineffective law will help our efforts to end homelessness and reduce racial disparities. It will also move us closer to creating a system of community-centered policing and social services that deal effectively and constructively with the underlying causes of crime.

Cam Gordon is a member of the Minneapolis City Council.

Recent Commentary stories

Google roundup: Hear, hear, for standing up against evil - June 19, 2008

Google roundup: Hear, hear, for standing up against evil - Google may not win its fight against the Chinese government, but bless it for trying. More

Comment on this story | Be the first to comment | Hide reader comments

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS