ACLU Commends Grand Rapids Police Decision to End Trespass Policy That Led to Disproportionate Arrest of African-Americans
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — The ACLU is hailing a recent decision by the Grand Rapids Police Department to end a policy that permitted police officers to arrest innocent people for trespassing at local businesses during operating hours — even when business owners didn’t ask them to leave.
The decision to end the policy — which resulted in African Americans being stopped at more than twice the rate as whites under the initiative — comes after years of litigation brought by the ACLU.
“No one should fear going to jail just because they stop to chat with a friend outside a store or pull into a parking lot to take a phone call,” said ACLU of Michigan Senior Staff Attorney Miriam Aukerman. “We urge the city commission to ensure that this is not just a temporary change in response to new legal rulings, but a permanent end to the Grand Rapids Police Department’s decades-old practice of arresting people, disproportionately people of color, simply for looking out of place.”
Under the department’s new policy, police cannot arrest a person for trespassing unless a representative of the business makes clear that they do not want that particular person on the property and the person has been told to leave.
The changes come on the heels of years of legal action by the ACLU, including a federal lawsuit the group filed in 2013 to stop the practice, which had been in effect for more than two decades. The suit, Hightower v. City of Grand Rapids, was filed after plaintiff Tyrone Hightower was arrested for trespassing while waiting in a parking lot to see if friends had gotten into a bar.
Another plaintiff in the lawsuit, Kirk McConer, was arrested for trespassing after he stopped to talk with a friend outside a store where he had just purchased a soda.
In May 2017, before the federal court could rule on Hightower, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed the same issue in a separate case, People v. Maggit, in which the ACLU filed an amicus brief making many of the same arguments raised in Hightower. The Court of Appeals ultimately ruled that the practice was unconstitutional.
On June 9, 2017, the city effectively ended the policy when Grand Rapids officials informed officers that they were now prohibited from carrying it out.
“The Grand Rapids Police Department gave itself a power it should never have had: deciding who belongs on a business’s property and who doesn’t,” said Jason Williamson, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “This policy allowed the systematic arrest of innocent people simply trying to go about their daily lives, and the department should assure the people of Grand Rapids that it will never be used again.”
Previously, the department had asked local businesses to sign generic “no trespass letters” and claimed these letters gave police the authority to arrest anyone on the business property without asking the business owner or employees whether the person was allowed to be there, and without the person having been first asked to leave.
Approximately 800 businesses in Grand Rapids signed such letters, although the public does not know which businesses those are.
In People v. Maggit, the court expressed alarm at the practice of arresting people based on these letters, warning that the arrests could reflect “systemic or recurrent police misconduct.” The court rejected the prosecutor’s argument that people are “subject to immediate arrest without warning” at open businesses just because, unbeknownst to the public, the business had signed a no trespass letter.
Julia Kelly, an attorney in both the Maggit and Hightower cases, said: “We hope that the Grand Rapids Police Department is ending the policy not only because the court of appeals said it is illegal, but also because the department recognizes that it must repair its broken relationship with communities of color, who have borne the brunt of this policy.”
The federal court hearing the Hightower case has yet to decide on the legality of the police department’s arrests of Mr. Hightower, Mr. McConer, and the other plaintiffs — all Black men who were arrested and charged with trespassing. Courts have previously determined that none of these plaintiffs had committed a crime.
The federal court dismissed part of the case last Wednesday, but the city’s liability for the plaintiffs’ arrests has yet to be decided.
More information about the case is here:
/cases/hightower-v-city-grand-rapids
Read about the new Grand Rapids policy here:
Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Hightower v. City of Grand Rapids
Smart Justice
Criminal Law Reform
Hightower v. City of Grand Rapids
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Maryland Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Roland Branch v. State of MarylandRoland Branch v. State of Maryland
This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The ACLU, alongside the ACLU of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ACLU argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition. -
North Carolina Supreme CourtDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
State v. WrightState v. Wright
This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The ACLU alongside the ACLU of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals.