Call the Police 3 Times? Get Evicted

[crashhelmet]

From the ACLU web site
Shut Up or Get Out: PA City Punishes Domestic Violence Victims Who Call the Police

Multiple cities around the country are passing "nuissance ordinances" that will result in you being evicted if you call the police three times within a certain period.

This has and will continue to result in victims not calling and reporting domestic violence, robbery, and other crimes in fear of being evicted from their homes.

After her first "strike," Ms. Briggs was terrified of calling the police. She did not want to do anything to risk losing her home. So even when her now ex-boyfriend attacked her with a brick, she did not call. And later, when he stabbed her in the neck, she was still too afraid to reach out. But both times, someone else did call the police. Based on these "strikes," the city pressured her landlord to evict. After a housing court refused to order an eviction, the city said it planned to condemn the property and forcibly remove Ms. Briggs from her home. The ACLU intervened, and the city did not carry out its threats, and even agreed to repeal the ordinance. But just two weeks later, Norristown quietly passed a virtually identical ordinance that imposes fines on landlords unless they evict tenants who obtain police assistance, including for domestic violence.

Domestic violence is something that already makes me sick to my stomach. Laws that punish the victims only add to it.

[bara]

Well, hey those cops need to be out writing tickets for the city to make more money...

[Andara Bledin]

It comes as no surprise at all that the law is actually unconstitutional and breaks other federal laws at the same time.

Time to waste a few more taxpayer dollars in the pursuit of higher real estate values.

[Gravekeeper]

I'm sincerely curious as to how this shit goes through despite being illegal, then ties up the courts for months just to prove its illegal.

Shouldn't this sort of shit go before a judge FIRST who can just say "Yeah no, illegal." -.-

[Duelist925]

I'm sincerely curious as to how this shit goes through despite being illegal, then ties up the courts for months just to prove its illegal.

Shouldn't this sort of shit go before a judge FIRST who can just say "Yeah no, illegal." -.-

Hell, shouldn't this shit go before a five year old who can point out how fucked up it is?

A freaking kid could look at this and go "But what if they actually need the police that many times?"

Why not restrict this law to those people who actually call the police for frivolous reasons? THat, I could get behind!

But a moronic blanket ban like this?!

[s_stabeler]

that was what i was going to suggest- three frivolous calls in x amount of time ( defined as a complaint that a reasonable person would not think was a crime- for example, calling the police that someone's breaking into a house when it turned out it was the homeowner who had locked himself out wouldn't count. If you were calling the police because you didn't like the look of the guy walking down the street...)

[BlaqueKatt]

they probably wrongly believe, like many others who have never been in the situation, that repeated DV calls are a waste of time because "she'll just take him back anyway, so she's not really a victim"(I've seen this attitude on this very board)

[HYHYBT]

I don't think that's it, nor that limiting it to frivolous calls would serve the purpose of the law. If I understand rightly, and that's a big if, the idea is that people don't want those who NEED police involvement regularly living nearby. Domestic abuse, drug selling, loud parties, any of it is a disturbance to the neighbors. Never mind that the effects of such a law are going to be far worse than the effects of not having it, because the negative effects (at least the immediately obvious ones) fall on fewer people, mainly those people don't much like to begin with.

[Panacea]

I'm sincerely curious as to how this shit goes through despite being illegal, then ties up the courts for months just to prove its illegal.

Shouldn't this sort of shit go before a judge FIRST who can just say "Yeah no, illegal." -.-

Well, if that confuses you, this outta blow your mind.

Municipal boards usually have an attorney who advises them on the legality of proposed ordinances as how they pertain to state and federal law. For example, if my town wanted to pass a law requiring blacks to drink out of a seperate water fountain, their lawyer would tell them, "uhm, no, that violates the Civil Rights Act."

Often, boards determined to do something will ignore their lawyer, or reword things in the hope they can get away with it.

[Nekojin]

I don't think that's it, nor that limiting it to frivolous calls would serve the purpose of the law. If I understand rightly, and that's a big if, the idea is that people don't want those who NEED police involvement regularly living nearby. Domestic abuse, drug selling, loud parties, any of it is a disturbance to the neighbors. Never mind that the effects of such a law are going to be far worse than the effects of not having it, because the negative effects (at least the immediately obvious ones) fall on fewer people, mainly those people don't much like to begin with.

If my neighbors make a habit of having an obnoxiously loud party after the city's noise curfew, I shouldn't be punished for reporting them, especially if they're disturbing my sleep in the process. The law doesn't punish those who are complained about - it punishes the complainers.

[gremcint]

go to the council member's houses and be as loud as possible until they have to call the cops, and then do it again.

[protege]

that repeated DV calls are a waste of time because "she'll just take him back anyway, so she's not really a victim"(I've seen this attitude on this very board)

After living next door to a domestic situation (Chuck and Diane...who I've posted about on CS before), I can understand why some might think that way. I don't *agree* with it, but I understand. For those who don't know, those two losers were alcoholics. They were constantly beating each other up, and the kids as well. It was pretty common to hear from that house...screaming, things being smashed, breaking glass, and crying. Quite a few times, the police were called. Nothing ever changed--no charges were filed. If one of them got hauled off to the drunk tank, they were home the next day, and the cycle would repeat itself. Imagine living next door to that for a decade.

...and then you have people like the goofballs that live next door to my parents. Coincidentally, they moved into Chuck and Diane's old house These fools have called the cops *multiple* times since arriving in 1993. We've had the cops called on us for cars parked in front of their house (on a public street, BTW), broken flowers, daring to play in *our* yard. Other neighbors have received threatening (forged) letters about such dangerous things as plastic kiddie pools in their yards, putting out trash cans 5 minutes early, or other "serious" issues.

What bugs me about the second...is that the police are having their time wasted. They could be dispatched for more serious calls. Instead, they're sent out on some bullshit call about a fucking dahlia. The law should punish people who waste officers' time with trivial shit like that.

[wolfie]

I don't think that's it, nor that limiting it to frivolous calls would serve the purpose of the law. If I understand rightly, and that's a big if, the idea is that people don't want those who NEED police involvement regularly living nearby. Domestic abuse, drug selling, loud parties, any of it is a disturbance to the neighbors. Never mind that the effects of such a law are going to be far worse than the effects of not having it, because the negative effects (at least the immediately obvious ones) fall on fewer people, mainly those people don't much like to begin with.

So in a case of somebody throwing loud parties, under this law THEY don't get turfed, but the person who calls the police on them DOES?

[Nekojin]

Yes, exactly, Wolfie.

[HYHYBT]

If my neighbors make a habit of having an obnoxiously loud party after the city's noise curfew, I shouldn't be punished for reporting them, especially if they're disturbing my sleep in the process. The law doesn't punish those who are complained about - it punishes the complainers.

Yes, exactly, Wolfie.

Read the article itself again, not just the headline. It doesn't say that you're evicted if you call the police three times. It says you're evicted if the police respond to a disturbance at your home three times.