portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government | police / legal

Tacoma City Council Violates Resolution 36058

Tacoma City Council violates its oath of office and its own Resolution 36058 upholding civil liberties and civil rights of its citizens
Date Passed: 12/16/03

A Resolution of Tacoma Washington

Approved by: Tacoma City Council
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Tacoma seeks to protect the civil liberties and civil rights for all its residents, and

WHEREAS, the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America holds as self-evident that all people are created equal and are endowed by the creator with unalienable rights fo life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and

WHEREAS, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments tot he Constitution of the United States establish a shielf of protection for the residents of the City, and

WHEREAS, the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the state of Washington guarantees all people living in Tacoma freedom of speech, assembly, and privacy; equally before the law and the presumption of innocence; access to counsel and due process in judicial proceedings; and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, and

WHEREAS the Tacoma City Council believes these liberties are precious and any act that seeks to deny or threaten them should be opposed, and

WHEREAS the Tacoma City Council acknowledges that federal, state, and local jurisdictions have a responsibility to protect the citizenry, and

WHEREAS, the Tacoma City Council established a HUman Rights Commission with a mandate to protect and preserve the civil liberties and rights of its residents as a pillar of our common society, and

WHEREAS measures such as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and other recent federal executive orders and governmental actions can undermine or threaten these basic liberties, and

WHEREAS, the Tacoma City Council believes that residents can be both safe and free, as do the governing bodies of over 219 other local, count and state jurisdictions, representing 26, 931, 608 residents, that have passed similar resolutionc and ordinances reaffirming support for civil liberties and civil rights, and

WHEREAS the Tacoma City Council strongly opposes any unconstitutionaly acts against its residents under the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 or similar govermental acts; Now, Therefore,

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TACOMA:

That the Council of the City of Tacoma will continue to defend the Constitution of the United States and take all necessary measures to ensure that the practices and polocies of the City protect those values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness we all hold so dearly.

Tacoma Bad Cops 11.Mar.2007 10:14

Tom

What do you expect, this is the same council that protected Police Chief David Brame, that is heavily supported and backed by the police union and cuts people off at the microphone when they speak about Brame. It happened before on January 9, 2007, when a citizen (P. Barrett) was silenced in the city council meeting for talking about Brame. Coincidence? No. This is a very calculated council in silencing citizens that speak badly about Tacoma cops and Brame.

Need another example of bad cops still on the job? Read: Frunz v. City of Tacoma.
 link to www.ca9.uscourts.gov

Here cops break into a home, without a warrant, point a gun at a homeowner, slam her and her guests to the floor, cuff their hands, then state "never mind," and leave. Even Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kozinski noted, "only the most misguided optimism would cause defendants, and those paying for their defense, to appeal the verdict. Surely, the citizens of Tacoma would not want to be treated in their own homes the way the jury found officers Stril, Morris and Alred treated Frunz and her guests."

The outcome is the city now has a punitive damages verdict against it. Accountability? No. Apparently these same cops are still on the job. Even though this case was published in the local newspaper as early as March 2005, the council now claims they did not know about the appeal.

Well of course they'd say that, since they don't want to be associated with protecting the police union over a case like this, and highlight that Councilwoman Anderson was married to officer Alred. That would be a conflict. Why not claim ignorance instead.

If you need more examples of bad cops, just live in Tacoma.

In times of war 11.Mar.2007 10:20

gk

Above resolution is only in times of peace, if that. With a war, all rights are tossed out the window. The feds take priority over the people. Impeach Bush and Cheney.

This is not surprizing at all 14.Aug.2007 14:01

JDH

I have spent the better part of five years to try to get the City of Tacoma to cease its practice (which since everyone from the Council on down is aware of could be considered a City policy) of discriminating against people with mobility disabilities. The City also continues to defy Washington State Law

RCW 35.68.075
Curb ramps for physically handicapped -- Required --
Standards and requirements.
(1) The standard for construction on any county road,
or city or town street, for which curbs in combination
with sidewalks, paths, or other pedestrian access ways
are to be constructed, shall be not less than two
ramps per lineal block on or near the crosswalks at
intersections. Such ramps shall be at least thirty-six
inches wide and so constructed as to allow reasonable
access to the crosswalk for physically handicapped
persons, without uniquely endangering blind persons.

(2) Standards set for curb ramping under
subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any
curb existing upon enactment of this section but shall
apply to all new curb construction and to all
replacement curbs constructed at any point in a block
which gives reasonable access to a crosswalk.

(3) Upon September 21, 1977, every ramp
thereafter constructed under subsection (1) of this
section, which serves one end of a crosswalk, shall be
matched by another ramp at the other end of the
crosswalk. However, no ramp shall be required at the
other end of the crosswalk if there is no curb nor
sidewalk at the other end of the crosswalk. Nor shall
any matching ramp constructed pursuant to this
subsection require a subsequent matching ramp.


[1989 c 173 1; 1977 ex.s. c 137 1; 1973 c 83 1.]