Chelsea City Council Receives Independent Report on Events of July 31, 2020

Image

By Doug Marrin

The Chelsea City Council received a significant development in working through the events that took place at Pierce Park last summer.

Chelsea City Council hired attorney Bruce Judge of Whistleblower Law Collaborative to conduct an independent investigation in response to a citizen complaint against the Chelsea Police Department (CPD) and Chief Ed Toth relating to events on Friday, July 31, 2020, during a protest at Pierce Park by Anti-Racist Chelsea Youth (ARCY). The City Council reviewed Mr. Judge’s report at its February 1, 2021, meeting.

“I just want to give a brief overview that the City has and continues to be committed to making ongoing improvements,” stated Mayor Johnson in introducing the attorney. “I think this is in part demonstrated by the City Council's hiring of outside legal counsel to review the complaint, as well as our own ongoing internal review of policies.”

“I think it's a very valuable process, and there's much that we can learn from tonight's review,” added Mayor Johnson. “I think it’s important that we reflect upon the report. We also understand that the actions that we take today will have an impact on those that we do in the future as well.”

Mr. Judge introduced his review by stating, “I did encounter a significant number of citizens of Chelsea who reached out to express their support for the police department.”

“Without me having to go and find individuals, they sought my office out once they knew the review was underway,” he added.

Judge went on to say that none of these people had information regarding the events of July 31, but they did have personal experiences with the Chelsea Police that they wanted to share.

In a cover letter to City Manager John Hanifan, Mr. Judge stated in part,

We have confirmed that DPD acted within the law with respect to the events of July 31, 2020. We have further confirmed that CPD and its leadership developed a plan for that day designed to enforce existing traffic laws with the goal of preventing injury to marchers and others.

In application, however, CPD’s actions on July 31, 2020 appear to have exceeded what was required to enforce the subject traffic laws. The deployment, the number, and the placement of officers resulted in videotaping and photographing many citizens who were not violating, and did not violate, any laws or ordinances that day.

It further appears that only a select number of those citizens who did violate the subject traffic laws on July 31, 2020 received citations from CPD. Certain of those citations were issued more than four months after the event. This has given rise to inevitable questions over selective enforcement and concern about CPD’s evenhandedness and impartiality.

Through the course of this review, we have confirmed that CPD is a professional organization with widespread support in the Chelsea community. We also found that the department’s actions surrounding the events of July 31, 2020 left a number of Chelsea residents deeply distrustful of their police department. Thoughtful actions will be required by CPD and other community leaders to restore a sense that CPD serves the entire Chelsea community.

For his investigation, Mr. Judge interviewed witnesses, the complainant, and Chief Toth. He studied City ordinances and policy, state vehicle codes, legalities surrounding free speech and protests in Michigan, and photographs and videos of the event taken by police and private citizens.

In his report, Mr. Judge laid out the context for the events of July 31, 2020. The context can be read in its entirety in the Council meeting packet on the City’s website. In short, ARCY had begun holding gatherings in response to the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The informal group was comprised mostly of students. During a gathering on June 25, 2020, an incident occurred in which an adult female allegedly struck an ARCY member, a minor, in the face. After this event, the number of participants in ARCY gatherings increased significantly, with some estimates as high as 500 people. Mr. Judge reports that it also appears at this point the ARCY demonstrations turned from protesting racial injustice in other communities to concerns over the practices of CPD. Marches became a regular feature of the weekly gatherings. The group’s route resulted in Main St. being shut down for the duration of the marches. Counter protestors showing support for CPD also began gathering in July.

In his report, Mr. Judge stated that as July 2020 unfolded, and the protests grew, the CPD faced a range of overlapping challenges concerning the marches.

  • Ensuring the safety of groups of minors marching in Main St during hours with high volumes of vehicle traffic, with no set route or schedule.
  • Preventing incidents of violence between protesters and counter-protestors, with the awareness that such incidents were occurring in other communities across the country.
  • Complaints from residents with no specific opposition to (or affiliation with) ARCY, who objected to vehicle traffic on Main St being delayed or detoured.
  • Concerns from business owners, already operating under the strain of the COVID restrictions, over the potential loss of customers due to actual or perceived inability to drive into and through downtown Chelsea.

“Certain of these challenges were exacerbated by the fact that CPD was unable to identify any designated ARCY leaders to communicate with over planned gathers and marches,” Judge states in his report.

On the evening of July 31, 2020, the attorney reports that ARCY protesters (estimated to be about 60 people) conducted a BLM march from Pierce Park to the police station for a planned sit-in. Marchers used the northbound lane of Main St. The march was led by three adults. According to witnesses, no CPD officers were positioned at Pierce Park to direct protestors to stay on the sidewalk. Based on an earlier ARCY announcement about not “backing down,” Judge is not sure such instruction would have deterred protestors from marching down Main St.

After protestors entered the road, CPD arrived in an aggressive and uncalled for “show of force” as witnesses on the sidewalk and in the street described it. Officers took photos and videos of the marchers, those in the road violating traffic law, and those on the sidewalk not in violation of any law. During the ARCY speeches at CPD, officers continued taking photographs and videos of the peaceful and lawful gathering in the parking lot from the police station's roof.

The same evening, a competing demonstration occurred. A line of vehicles drove down Main St past the police building displaying signs in support of the police. Media outlets dubbed this the “Patriot’s Parade.” Shouts and gestures were exchanged between the two groups. Judge reports that the group assembled at a different location in Chelsea in a rally of support for CPD.

Judge states, “It is believed that CPD issued citations to at least 18 individuals for the civil offense of impeding traffic on July 31, 2020, including citations to minors as young as 14 years of age. All the individuals who received citations appeared to be members or supporters of Arcy. At least one of the citations was issued as recently as December 14, 2020.”

Judge also makes the point that reliance on the images creates a strong inference that individuals were selected for citations because they spoke out publicly against the police. CPD files also “suggest that officers may have used evidence obtained in an investigation of a physical assault on a minor as the basis to issue traffic citations against the victim and a member of her family.”

Judge concludes that “the events of July 31, 2020, and the Chelsea Police Department’s response to those events, have created a significant rift in the Chelsea community.” The attorney credits the community for confronting these issues without the destruction seen elsewhere in the country. He believes the City can heal. “There is every reason to believe that Chelsea possess all of the civic and community resource to do exactly that.”

After Mr. Judge finished presenting his report, the City Council discussed the next steps.

“Obviously, it's very important that this be a major component of our visioning session,” stated Councilmember Albertson. A sentiment reiterated throughout the Council.

“I think kind of what everybody is probably thinking, and to echo Ms. Albertson as well, I don't want this to be accepted and then forgotten,” Councilmember Kwas added. “I honestly was leaning more towards keeping that door open and asking for that additional information from Mr. Judge, now that we've had a great community conversation and answered a lot of questions.”

Councilmember Pacheco stated, “Bruce Judge’s report pointed to some things that we need to address, at the very least, from a policy perspective. I want to make sure that it's clear that the council has heard these folks speaking tonight and that I, for one, am a proponent of discussing and expanding the scope of full review and looking at how we dismiss the charges for the citations that are within our purview to do so.”

Mayor Johnson concluded the Council’s discussion, saying, “I certainly support accepting the record. I do think there are some policy considerations that Council should take a closer look at. I can also state to verify that this isn't just ‘accept and go away.’ I personally made the request to put this on continuing conversation regarding police review on the city's visioning session coming up next week.”

The Council voted to accept the Judge Report.

Audio for Mr. Judge’s report to the Council is posted on the City’s website. His complete report is included in the Council meeting packet posted on the City’s website.

I'm interested
I disagree with this
This is unverified
Spam
Offensive