SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A Municipal Vote in Providence for Police Reform Carries National Implications
After three years of sustained community mobilization and advocacy, the Providence City Council in Rhode Island voted this Thursday to unanimously approve among the most visionary set of policing reforms proposed around the country to protect civil rights and civil liberties, includin
Apr 23, 2017
After three years of sustained community mobilization and advocacy, the Providence City Council in Rhode Island voted this Thursday to unanimously approve among the most visionary set of policing reforms proposed around the country to protect civil rights and civil liberties, including digital liberties. EFF supported the proposed Community Safety Act (CSA), and its adoption represents a milestone that should prompt similar measures in other jurisdictions.
Reflecting an understanding of of how many different communities endure parallel--but seemingly separate--violations of civil rights and civil liberties, the CSA aims to address surveillance alongside racial and other dimensions of discriminatory profiling. The ordinance imposes crucial limits on police powers at a time when local police have become the leading edge of mass surveillance, as well as longstanding abuses of civil rights and digital liberties rooted in the war on drugs.
The most notable facet of the CSA is its sheer breadth. It addresses a wide-ranging set of issues in a single reform measure.
For instance, the Act requires that targeted electronic surveillance be supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. On the one hand, that requirement should be implicit given the history of politicized domestic surveillance within the United States. On the other hand, relative to the prevailing practice of ubiquitous intelligence collection, the Act's requirements represent a monumental legal shift.
In addition, the CSA protects the right of residents to observe and record police activities. That right has been vital to sparking a sustained debate across the country about police accountability, but has come under fire. Just this month, a federal appellate court heard oral argument in an appeal seeking to vindicate the right to record police in the wake of trial court decisions in multiple cases perversely holding that residents gain a right to record only after announcing their hostility to police, effectively inviting retaliation or even violence.
The bill also protects Due Process rights threatened by the otherwise arbitrary and secretive inclusion of individuals in government gang databases. In California, for instance, state auditors discovered that the state's program received "no state oversight" and operated "without transparency or meaningful opportunities for public input," prompting the state legislature to intervene by passing a new law providing notice of inclusion and an opportunity to contest it.
At the same time, responding to controversy about traffic stops and pedestrian stop and frisks rooted in bias rather than observed behavior, the Act requires that police change their processes for searching subjects. In particular, when seeking to search subjects without either a judicial warrant or probable cause to suspect criminal activity, the Act requires police to inform the subjects that they have the right to decline consent to the requested search. That represents a sea change in policing, given the practice among some police departments to train officers to use deception to induce a subject's consent, ensuring that it is neither informed nor voluntary.
Similarly, the Act's restrictions on racial profiling and intelligence collection absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity offer important bulwarks to reinforce our Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as 14th Amendment protections to be free from racial and other forms of discrimination.
Beyond the CSA's substantive breath lies a novel theory of change informing its construction. Rather than a discrete reform proposed by advocates, the CSA represents a concerted attempt to address the intersectional concerns of several communities responding to a common challenge: discriminatory or otherwise unconstitutional police practices.
While Providence has distinguished itself in the remarkably diverse coalition of community groups that have come together to pursue common cause, the issues to which Providence activists are responding are hardly unique to their city. Ultimately, grassroots groups in every major city across the country might learn something from the coalition to pass the Providence Community Safety Act.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Shahid Buttar
Shahid Buttar is a civil rights lawyer, grassroots community organizer, and democratic socialist running for U.S. Congress in CA-12 to unseat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2020.
After three years of sustained community mobilization and advocacy, the Providence City Council in Rhode Island voted this Thursday to unanimously approve among the most visionary set of policing reforms proposed around the country to protect civil rights and civil liberties, including digital liberties. EFF supported the proposed Community Safety Act (CSA), and its adoption represents a milestone that should prompt similar measures in other jurisdictions.
Reflecting an understanding of of how many different communities endure parallel--but seemingly separate--violations of civil rights and civil liberties, the CSA aims to address surveillance alongside racial and other dimensions of discriminatory profiling. The ordinance imposes crucial limits on police powers at a time when local police have become the leading edge of mass surveillance, as well as longstanding abuses of civil rights and digital liberties rooted in the war on drugs.
The most notable facet of the CSA is its sheer breadth. It addresses a wide-ranging set of issues in a single reform measure.
For instance, the Act requires that targeted electronic surveillance be supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. On the one hand, that requirement should be implicit given the history of politicized domestic surveillance within the United States. On the other hand, relative to the prevailing practice of ubiquitous intelligence collection, the Act's requirements represent a monumental legal shift.
In addition, the CSA protects the right of residents to observe and record police activities. That right has been vital to sparking a sustained debate across the country about police accountability, but has come under fire. Just this month, a federal appellate court heard oral argument in an appeal seeking to vindicate the right to record police in the wake of trial court decisions in multiple cases perversely holding that residents gain a right to record only after announcing their hostility to police, effectively inviting retaliation or even violence.
The bill also protects Due Process rights threatened by the otherwise arbitrary and secretive inclusion of individuals in government gang databases. In California, for instance, state auditors discovered that the state's program received "no state oversight" and operated "without transparency or meaningful opportunities for public input," prompting the state legislature to intervene by passing a new law providing notice of inclusion and an opportunity to contest it.
At the same time, responding to controversy about traffic stops and pedestrian stop and frisks rooted in bias rather than observed behavior, the Act requires that police change their processes for searching subjects. In particular, when seeking to search subjects without either a judicial warrant or probable cause to suspect criminal activity, the Act requires police to inform the subjects that they have the right to decline consent to the requested search. That represents a sea change in policing, given the practice among some police departments to train officers to use deception to induce a subject's consent, ensuring that it is neither informed nor voluntary.
Similarly, the Act's restrictions on racial profiling and intelligence collection absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity offer important bulwarks to reinforce our Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as 14th Amendment protections to be free from racial and other forms of discrimination.
Beyond the CSA's substantive breath lies a novel theory of change informing its construction. Rather than a discrete reform proposed by advocates, the CSA represents a concerted attempt to address the intersectional concerns of several communities responding to a common challenge: discriminatory or otherwise unconstitutional police practices.
While Providence has distinguished itself in the remarkably diverse coalition of community groups that have come together to pursue common cause, the issues to which Providence activists are responding are hardly unique to their city. Ultimately, grassroots groups in every major city across the country might learn something from the coalition to pass the Providence Community Safety Act.
Shahid Buttar
Shahid Buttar is a civil rights lawyer, grassroots community organizer, and democratic socialist running for U.S. Congress in CA-12 to unseat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2020.
After three years of sustained community mobilization and advocacy, the Providence City Council in Rhode Island voted this Thursday to unanimously approve among the most visionary set of policing reforms proposed around the country to protect civil rights and civil liberties, including digital liberties. EFF supported the proposed Community Safety Act (CSA), and its adoption represents a milestone that should prompt similar measures in other jurisdictions.
Reflecting an understanding of of how many different communities endure parallel--but seemingly separate--violations of civil rights and civil liberties, the CSA aims to address surveillance alongside racial and other dimensions of discriminatory profiling. The ordinance imposes crucial limits on police powers at a time when local police have become the leading edge of mass surveillance, as well as longstanding abuses of civil rights and digital liberties rooted in the war on drugs.
The most notable facet of the CSA is its sheer breadth. It addresses a wide-ranging set of issues in a single reform measure.
For instance, the Act requires that targeted electronic surveillance be supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. On the one hand, that requirement should be implicit given the history of politicized domestic surveillance within the United States. On the other hand, relative to the prevailing practice of ubiquitous intelligence collection, the Act's requirements represent a monumental legal shift.
In addition, the CSA protects the right of residents to observe and record police activities. That right has been vital to sparking a sustained debate across the country about police accountability, but has come under fire. Just this month, a federal appellate court heard oral argument in an appeal seeking to vindicate the right to record police in the wake of trial court decisions in multiple cases perversely holding that residents gain a right to record only after announcing their hostility to police, effectively inviting retaliation or even violence.
The bill also protects Due Process rights threatened by the otherwise arbitrary and secretive inclusion of individuals in government gang databases. In California, for instance, state auditors discovered that the state's program received "no state oversight" and operated "without transparency or meaningful opportunities for public input," prompting the state legislature to intervene by passing a new law providing notice of inclusion and an opportunity to contest it.
At the same time, responding to controversy about traffic stops and pedestrian stop and frisks rooted in bias rather than observed behavior, the Act requires that police change their processes for searching subjects. In particular, when seeking to search subjects without either a judicial warrant or probable cause to suspect criminal activity, the Act requires police to inform the subjects that they have the right to decline consent to the requested search. That represents a sea change in policing, given the practice among some police departments to train officers to use deception to induce a subject's consent, ensuring that it is neither informed nor voluntary.
Similarly, the Act's restrictions on racial profiling and intelligence collection absent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity offer important bulwarks to reinforce our Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as 14th Amendment protections to be free from racial and other forms of discrimination.
Beyond the CSA's substantive breath lies a novel theory of change informing its construction. Rather than a discrete reform proposed by advocates, the CSA represents a concerted attempt to address the intersectional concerns of several communities responding to a common challenge: discriminatory or otherwise unconstitutional police practices.
While Providence has distinguished itself in the remarkably diverse coalition of community groups that have come together to pursue common cause, the issues to which Providence activists are responding are hardly unique to their city. Ultimately, grassroots groups in every major city across the country might learn something from the coalition to pass the Providence Community Safety Act.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.