Official responses to the marijuana enforcement differential

logo Latest in a series of posts about the Southside logo

Say, didn’t I just see all of you in line in front of me at Weiss market an hour or so ago?

We posted earlier about the differential in the heavy way Bethlehem police are charging residents and the lighter way Lehigh Police are charging students in front of southside judge Nancy Matos Gonzalez, a serious question, said the judge, of her ability to dispense  justice equitably.

In other words, in this judge’s experience the Bethlehem Police were not very often utilizing the lesser charge option made possible by the ordinance.

And it makes you wonder if Bethlehem police practice is undermining the intent of the recent ordinance decriminalizing the use of small amounts of marijuana, as well as wonder if the ordinance is applied differently in other parts of the city.

At Council January 2, the Mayor reported that the Police Chief will be meeting with the new Northampton County District Attorney Houck about his views on our new ordinance. Remember that the decriminalizing ordinance was not effective in the Lehigh County parts of Bethlehem because the Lehigh County D.A. ruled that Federal law still uniformly applies there. The former Northampton County D.A. ok’d the option for the police to decide whether to make the offense a heavy (Federal) or light (City) charge.

The Mayor’s response seems solely aimed at the question of how the marijuana law is functioning in the context of the split county jurisdiction in our town.

But that’s not the same question as how the police option to bring a light or a heavy charge is working.

Councilman Reynolds’ request to Council seems have the necessary breadth.

marijuana 2

Reynolds’ request for a Public Safety meeting on the issue will be communicated to Council for action at next Tuesday’s meeting.

Southside magistrate has difficulty dispensing equitable justice in marijuana cases

logo Latest in a series of posts about the Southside logo

Nicole Radzievich, “District judge questions how Bethlehem treats minor marijuana offenses.” Morning Call, December 16, 2019.

We thought that the difficulty with decriminalizing uses of small amounts of marijuana in Bethlehem would come because of our bi-county status.

Because of the different views of the respective District Attorneys, marijuana use in Lehigh County Bethlehem would remain a criminal offense whereas in Northampton County Bethlehem it might only be a summary defense at the discretion of the arresting officer.

Different legal jeopardy on two sides of the same Bethlehem street, as it were.

Gadfly has not heard problems or complaints about this anomaly, however.

But the disparity is of another kind — unregarded, though probably easily enough foreseen, when the legislation was discussed.

In the following letter, Southside magistrate Nancy Matos Gonzalez points out that Southside residents are penalized much more severely than Lehigh students for the same marijuana offense.

Lehigh generally charges students under the city ordinance with a summary offense on the order of a traffic ticket. But city officers, with discretion to file either a summary or a criminal charge, choose the criminal charges against Southside residents 3+ times more than Lehigh police do against Lehigh students.

The disparity is so great, says Matos Gonzalez, “that the differing policy practices between the two agencies has, in my professional opinion, brought forth a situation which constricts my ability to dispense equitable justice.”

In short, it would appear that the Lehigh students are getting a break that Southside residents aren’t from our well-intentioned legislation to decriminalize use of small amounts of marijuana.

By a big margin.

Sensitive to the “vastly differing” demographics “between both communities” unarguably based “on race, ethnicity, and economic levels,” Matos Gonzalez asks how this disparity can be justified.

The differential financial burden of a criminal charge is severe, as Matos Gonzalez documents, but the part of the decriminalizing legislation rationale that Gadfly remembers most vividly from City Council discussion as well as the horror stories at the local public hearing held by Lieutenant Governor Fetterman was the “residual sanction of a resulting permanent criminal recordfor using a small amount of marijuana.

By and large, Lehigh students are being spared that career impediment.

Hmmm.

Gadfly remembers vigorous public comments last year at Council meetings by Jeff Riedy, Executive Director of Lehigh Valley NORML and would welcome hearing from him again on this situation.

And also some expanded remarks on marijuana enforcement by the Chief beyond what he said about drugs in Bethlehem during the recent budget hearings (the last few minutes of this video).

The question would seem to be whether enforcement practice by Bethlehem police is undercutting the intent of the legislation and whether that enforcement practice is different on the Southside than in other parts of the City.

A tip o’ the hat to Magistrate Matos Gonzalez for calling attention to a possible “systemic issue” that should be addressed.

Gadfly always recommends going to the primary source. The magistrate’s full letter is printed below.

Dear Chief DiLuzio,

I recently received your letter referencing my previous discussions with both yourself and Mayor Donchez. To be clear, I initiated contact to voice my concern regarding a noted potential for disparity in sanctions, permanent records, and financial cost for Individuals prosecuted for small amount of marijuana. This noted potential for disparity is solely based upon which one of the two police departments operating within this district prosecutes the case. Further, expressed that the differing policy practices between the two agencies has, in my professional opinion, brought forth a situation which constricts my ability to dispense equitable justice.

As you are aware, Bethlehem Police and Lehigh University Police both operate in South Bethlehem. Understandably, as independent agencies, each has its own Standard Operating Procedures. I am fully cognizant it is not my role, practice, nor desire to critique those procedures. I do, though, unabashedly feel compelled to illuminate what is potentially an undetected consequential result of policy implementation and absolutely believe it is my role to speak out to systemic matters affecting my rulings and sworn oath to uphold justice.

As the presiding Magisterial District Judge in this district, I offer the following summary of happenings since the enactment of the law up until the date of meeting with the Mayor on September 26, 2019. These are the pertinent factors relating to these case filings on which I base my concerns:

  • Lehlgh University PD has by general policy and practice filed the local summary ordinance in the Small Amount cases, which decriminalizes the possession of marijuana.
  • Bethlehem PD policy allows for “Officer discretion to use ordinance, state law or both. By practice, the Bethlehem Police officers have, in this district alone, filed the criminal grading of Poss of a Small Amount at a rate” of 3.25 times more often than the ordinance offense. Additionally, for cases that a Bethlehem Police officer has filed a Poss of Drug Paraphernalia charge related to Marijuana, the officer is 7 times more likely to file the criminal Poss of Small Amount charge.
  • Defendants who are charged with a city ordinance of Poss of a Small Amount of Marijuana are ordered to pay a set fine and cost amount of $116.25 for a first offense and a maximum set fine and cost of $241.25 for up to a offense within one calendar year.
  • Defendants who plead guilty to the criminal charge of Poss of a Small Amount of Marijuana can be ordered to pay fine and cost of up to $1073.75 and up to 30 days incarceration.
  • In an effort to balance the scales for parties prosecuted for the criminal charge rather than the summary offense, I, by practice, set the fine at $1.00 minimal amount. Unfortunately, once the cost for criminal processing fees are attached the total minimal amount due is $574.75. These parties are subject to cost almost 5 times higher than the summary cost and they are subject to a potentially more serious residual sanction of a resulting permanent criminal record.
  • Unfortunately, there are many individuals who wish to plead guilty to the charge at the Preliminary Hearing but do not have the means to post the $574.?5 fine and cost assessment. The district court does not supervise fine and cost collection of criminal cases and those parties, more often than not, waive their preliminary hearings, often by necessity to have time to raise some funds. In the interim months awaiting their case, they are subject to bail and with the potential for supervision with specified conditions. Once their case comes to resolution, they are subject to a significant increase in cost at the higher court level.
  • For the defendants who do not dispute the merits of the case but are interested in preserving their record, they often chose to waive their Preliminary Hearing to the higher court and seal: the ARD program. They are then subject to the assessment of bail with potential conditions, often subject to further cost to hire legal counsel to maneuver through the process of the higher court application process; face even more significant court cost at the higher level; and may be Subject to probationary Supervision.

For the sake of transparency, I will state my motive in addressing my concerns is not based on a philosophical stance regarding how Marijuana cases should be prosecuted. Undoubtedly, the approach towards the prosecution of Marijuana cases is in a transitional time period on the national, state, county, and city level. I am also aware that has complicated circumstances specific to the City of Bethlehem, which lies within two differing counties. My motive is purely to strive for an equal playing field for all who appear before this District Court. Right now, that does not currently exist and the result is polarizing. To be as frank as possible, if you are arrested for the charge at hand by Lehigh University, which is a long standing prestigious academic institution, you will likely, by far, be subject to less sanctions, court supervision, and permanent effects than if you are a citizen in the same circumstance from the city streets charged within the same Magisterial District that is all contained within a one square mile radius. I ask how that can be justified. I will not ignore that the demographics between both communities are unarguably vastly differing based on race, ethnicity, and economic levels. Therefore, I stand by my comment made earlier that there is a systemic issue to address here, of which I do not wish to be complicit. I remain hopeful this writing will prompt a closer look at the circumstances at hand and potential for disparity, particularly with the order “Officer discretion to use ordinance, state law or both.”

Sincerely,

Nancy Matos Gonzalez

Councilwoman Crampsie Smith: “This area needs to really be given attention”

logo Latest in a series of posts about neighborhoods logo

Gadfly wraps up today’s long “neighborhood” thread from last Tuesday’s City Council meeting here.

He loves the real down-to-earth people from our town, and they are no more compelling than when they are in need.

He spun this thread out hoping you would linger on each of the resident testimonies.

You don’t want to depend on summaries and soundbites.

You want to hear the live voices. And recognize the common humanity.

So, where do you go when you are in need? When you are in trouble. When you need help.

You go to City Council, of course, which, as I always say, though administratively powerless, is to our residents the “face” of City government.

So these people came to City Council looking for someone to help.

Gadfly doesn’t mean to slight the other Council members, but he senses that in her short time on Council Grace Crampsie Smith, who has a family background in law enforcement, is focusing on such neighborhood issues as block watches, policing, housing.

So he brings this thread to an end (for now) with Councilwoman Crampsie Smith’s concluding remarks on the issues these residents brought to Council’s attention.

  • While we want every single neighborhood in the City to be safe, we are seeing certainly an increase in drug problems and poverty and homelessness and affordable housing, but I think this area needs to really be given attention because of the number of drug and criminal activities that have occurred in the last five years.
  • I really would ask that the City Administration and the Police Department and especially the Zoning do everything they can to try to rectify the problems we’ve been seeing.

It may not be clear from Gadfly’s clips that the main focus of attention in the resident comments has been on the 900 block of Main St., with some reference to Garrison St.

“I feel community policing is very important”

logo Latest in a series of posts about neighborhoods logo

A resident proposes a plan in response to the problems detailed over the last several posts, and — behold — we see another gadfly born!

  • I know many of the older police, and we managed to clean up quite a few blocks.
  • I feel community policing is very important, because it is the only way that citizens get to see that police are human too.
  • We became good friends.
  • And we managed to get good block watches going.
  • I hear now that nobody wants to get involved any more in community policing.
  • Some may not admit it, but they are afraid — and I understand that totally.
  • Because I’m afraid . . . some guy pulled a gun in front of my house at me.
  • I was pretty much a prisoner of my own home.
  • Community policing has done a lot for me and other people.
  • So I would really like to see something done with this.
  • Get officers in to this, I’ll even volunteer to work with them.
  • This is a very important part of the police department.
  • If they’re afraid to go out there and talk to people, that’s not good.
  • I’m going to be a thorn in everybody’s side, but I’m doing it for the good of my home, which is Bethlehem.

Gadfly knows this is a big change of pace, but how about this as an example of good community policing?

“We have so many issues on our block”

logo Latest in a series of posts about neighborhoods logo

No Gadfly comment needed here either . . .

  • We do have a block watch now [900 block Main st.].
  • We just call the cops all the time.
  • We have so many issues on our block.
  • I keep complaining to the Health Department and finally they were inspected.
  • So we keep complaining . . . and nothing’s being done.
  • I’m curious what you plan on doing to rectify this, to make it a safer environment.
  • We have a daycare, a grade school . . . It’s not safe to walk up and down the street.
  • What can you do to make it safer?
  • I would think there would be more due diligence.

“There’s a meth lab on the corner”

logo Latest in a series of posts about neighborhoods logo

Needs no commentary . . .

  • There was a shooting on our block . . . over drugs.
  • There are homes on our block that are known to be selling drugs.
  • I’ve called the police time and time again. Nothing is being done.
  • There’s a meth lab on the corner.
  • We need to do something . . . to take control of our homes and our neighborhoods.
  • It’s not safe for our children to go out and walk.
  • This is crazy, and nobody’s doing anything about it.
  • I worry about our next generation.
  • Do you want everybody to move out of Bethlehem because it’s not safe any more?
  • Nothing was ever in the newspaper about the shooting.
  • I understand that the police force needs more officers.
  • We need to do something.
  • We do our due diligence. We need protection, and it’s not there any more.
  • I’m afraid.
  • No one’s doing anything about it.
  • I get they’re understaffed.
  • My taxes should be going to safety.

to be continued . . .

“We do have a drug problem here in Bethlehem”

logo Latest in a series of posts about neighborhoods logo

Public comment at the City Council meeting last Tuesday night had more than the usual “edge” to it as a series of residents made moving and powerful statements about problems in their neighborhoods revolving around drugs and called for more policing, especially community policing.

A few posts ago Gadfly called attention to the return to active duty of resident Gadfly Eddie Rodriguez. Here you can see him forcefully and bluntly consolidating the message that several other residents delivered and which Gadfly will present in subsequent posts.

But for now listen to Rodriquez presenting the problem and calling for action.

Gadfly’s idyllic Norman Rockwell image of Bethlehem took a hit.

  • I would like something to be done.
  • We do have a drug problem here in Bethlehem.
  • It’s important to take the input from these community members.
  • These community members are scared.
  • I know for a fact that what these people [neighbors] are commenting on, that is happening.
  • These people [drug people] are not going to give up just because you had a drug raid.
  • You have more drugs down on Garrison Street than what anybody suspects here.
  • I came from that world . . . so I know, personally myself, as to what’s happening in these communities.
  • If you’re not doing anything, it’s not going to happen.
  • You have to get involved, really involved, and bust these people.
  • It’s the drugs.
  • They don’t give a darn about what they do and how they do it and they don’t care about your churches and they don’t care about your community.
  • They are out to destroy.
  • Do something about it before this situation gets out of hand.
  • I’m pleading with you for the sake of the decent-living community members that came out here.
  • Do something now before it’s too late.
  • You gotta get the police more involved.

to be continued . . .