By Lindsay Toler
By Chad Garrison
By Brett Koshkin
By RFT Staff
By Lindsay Toler
By Riverfront Times
By Danny Wicentowski
By Pete Kotz
Attorneys for protesters arrested during a police crackdown in the days prior to the World Agricultural Forum in May say they are preparing for an all-out legal battle.
At the same time, officers suspected of vandalism during the crackdowns are being shielded by the department, which refuses to publicly disclose investigative documents that could show whether officers broke the law and how thoroughly the department investigated allegations against police.
Attorneys for the protesters made their first appearances in St. Louis municipal court on July 29. The cases were continued until September 11. Rory Ellinger, lawyer for more than a dozen people who were arrested, says he'll enter not-guilty pleas and demand jury trials on the alleged violations of city ordinances.
"We expect all this stuff to continue for many months to come," Ellinger says. All told, at least 27 people were arrested or cited, most for impeding traffic while riding bicycles in Tower Grove Park and occupying two condemned buildings where protesters were staying. Ellinger says he's not sure exactly how many people he will represent, but he believes the number exceeds twenty. "We keep coming up with an extra person coming forward saying, 'Did you know I had this ticket?'" he says.
Justin Meehan, lawyer for eight people who were arrested, says the city should expect a fight. "This is the first broadside salvo of the war," he says. "My intention is to set these cases for trial."
While protesters prepare for their day in open court, police refuse to make public an investigation into officers accused of slashing tires on bicycles seized from protesters and damaging property inside the condemned buildings. Protesters and their attorneys say clothing and other belongings inside the buildings were soaked in urine. Meehan says one protester found a moustache scrawled on a photograph of her boyfriend.
In June, Police Chief Joseph Mokwa ordered an internal-affairs investigation, promising that any officer found to have damaged property would be disciplined. From the beginning, Mokwa has leaned toward keeping the investigation secret. In a June interview with the Riverfront Times, the chief answered "probably not" when asked if the internal-affairs report would be made public.
When the Riverfront Times formally requested a copy of the internal-affairs reports under the state Sunshine Law, the department denied the request, saying the documents were exempt from the law because they concerned personnel matters. That's long been a standard answer in Missouri, where police have routinely cited the Sunshine Law's personnel exemption as a reason to keep internal-affairs investigations confidential.
The legal landscape changed two years ago when the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled that internal-affairs reports are public records that must be disclosed under the Sunshine Law if investigations involve suspicion of criminal conduct. When the Riverfront Times brought the 2001 decision to the attention of St. Louis police, the department again balked, saying the Supreme Court ruling doesn't apply, even though the investigation wasn't finished.
"The Internal Affairs reports are still not completed," wrote Michael F. Stelzer, general counsel to Mokwa and the Board of Police Commissioners, in a July 8 letter to the newspaper. "The nature of the complaint does not involve criminal behavior."
"That's obviously ludicrous," says Susie Chasnoff, a member of the Coalition Against Police Crimes and Repression, which wants the city to establish a civilian review board to investigate cases of police misconduct. "They have slashed tires and urinated on things. They're obviously investigating them for criminal misconduct because of things like the slashed tires."
In an interview, Stelzer explains that slashing tires and damaging property with urine aren't crimes, at least in the city.
"Our view of it, and when I discussed it with [internal-affairs commander Lieutenant] Colonel [Stephen] Pollihan, he said at most you may have a city ordinance violation by the officers," Stelzer says. "And if you did have that -- and I did my own research on this -- that's not criminal. In Missouri, ordinance violations are considered civil in nature, even though the standard of proof is still reasonable doubt."
In other words, so long as the police call it an ordinance violation, officers and internal-affairs investigators are safe from scrutiny under the Sunshine Law, at least in the department's view. Stelzer says he doesn't know how a property-destruction case against an officer who slashed bicycle tires or urinated on private property could be prosecuted except as a city ordinance violation.
But the police department does not have the power to decide if an offense is an ordinance violation or a crime under state law. That's a decision for prosecutors. And the sort of vandalism police allegedly engaged in is a crime under state law. The language of the statute is unambiguous: "A person commits the crime of property damage in the second degree if he...knowingly damages the property of another" (Missouri Revised Statute 569.120). If vandalism is a criminal offense, then internal affairs is investigating alleged criminal behavior -- and the internal-affairs investigation should be a public record, based on the two-year-old Supreme Court decision.
Scott Holste, spokesman for state attorney general Jay Nixon, says circuit attorneys have the authority to prosecute under state criminal statutes, regardless of city ordinances. That's not just theoretical, according to Jeannette Graviss, chief warrant officer for St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce. Graviss says her office has filed misdemeanor charges under the state's second-degree property destruction statute. Whether that happens can depend on police, who decide which cases are presented to the circuit attorney for prosecution under state law and which ones go to the city counselor as ordinance violations. But cops don't have the final say on whether an offense should be handled as an ordinance violation or a violation of state law. Graviss says her office evaluates each case presented by police and decides whether to dismiss it, file charges under state law or refer it to the city counselor's office as an ordinance violation.