The Pacific Beach Town Council on June 15 heard about the proposed Protect Act, which is aimed at reducing racial profiling by the police.
A pro-Protect Act group, The Coalition For Police Accountability and Transparency, argues in favor of the proposal at cpatsd.com.
“Protect seeks to address invasive policing practices used disproportionately to stop, search and interrogate people from Black, Latino, and Asian/Pacific Islander communities, the LGBTQ community, people with disabilities, and people from other marginalized communities,” states the organization. “Protect will require San Diego police to have probable cause in order to stop, ask for identification, question, and/or search an individual. The ordinance will also limit stops for equipment violations.”
A San Diego Police Department officer spoke against the proposed Protect Act. “The Protect Act is the most radical piece of anti-law enforcement legislation in America today,” said Jared Wilson, president of the San Diego Police Officers Association. “It will damage policing in the City and create an unsafe community. If passed, it will give San Diego a reputation as a place to come to commit a crime.”
Wilson argued the Protect Act would severely limit existing police consent and search procedures. He offered an example. “In PB, there are a lot of DUIs,” he said. “Now we can stop, detain, and investigate that person. But this act takes that away from us. So, if you’re stopped for a DUI at 2 a.m because you ran a red light, an officer can stop them for running the red light. But they don’t have probable cause to arrest them for a DUI.”
According to The Coalition For Police Accountability and Transparency: “We believe in community-driven policy solutions that are informed by and inclusive of people most impacted by biased policing and police violence. We believe in a future where communities are free of police violence, free of biased policing, and free of police surveillance, and that our local governments should be transparent with the public and be accountable for abuses of power, especially concerning police misconduct.”
In his presentation to PBTC, Wilson cited several other problems police have with the new proposed legislation to curb some of their powers.
“Police would no longer be able to ask for identification, or anything else, without probable cause,” he said. “If we stop you for running a red light, we can’t run you for a warrant. We won’t be able to question suspicious people who’ve been stopped for operating a dangerous vehicle.”
Wilson asserted the coalition backing the Protect Act “wants to reduce police vehicle stops in San Diego, and they will succeed if they pass this.”
Wilson noted staff attrition continues with SDPD as other regional law enforcement agencies pay more. That, he added, has reduced police response times.
“I’ve never seen response times this bad in the City,” he said. “Priority one calls, fights, and burglaries in progress, with a goal of 6- to 14-minute response, is now taking 34 minutes Citywide. Those things take time and personnel.”
Wilson also disputed the viability of the Protect Act and its objectives. “The goal is to stop stops, and that racial disparity in traffic stops will end,” he said. “We (police) don’t think it’s true. We now provide additional training against racial bias. The Protect Act, most likely, in and of itself, is not legal. There is nothing in it that is going to make our communities better or safer places.”
According to The Coalition For Police Accountability and Transparency: “We believe that racial justice means dismantling our current policing systems, which systematically harm and incarcerate Black and Brown communities. We believe in policy solutions based on the equity that aims to address the harms and concerns of communities disproportionately impacted by police violence, including BIPOC communities, the LGBTQ+ community, people with disabilities, the unhoused community, immigrant communities, and others.”
PROTECT ACT
The Protect Act was proposed by San Diego’s Coalition for Police Accountability and Transparency. It would ban pretextual stops for certain equipment violations, including expired registration; failure to have a light illuminating a license plate; defective and unsafe equipment; absence of functional taillights, headlights, turn signals, brake lights, or a high mount stop light; absence of an exhaust system that prevents excessive or unusual levels of noise; having sun shading materials and/or tinting films, or having objects suspended in the vehicle.
Instead of being stopped, drivers with equipment violations would receive “fix-it” notices in the mail. The ordinance, as written, also would require probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion to stop a person. Additionally, it would prohibit officers from questioning drivers about offenses unrelated to the traffic violation, “unless there is probable cause that the person stopped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime other than the offense for which such person was stopped.”
