Laserfiche WebLink
Chair Shachner asked if Ms. Swallow was worried about civil suits for failure to act, which <br /> exclude an act/omission that is imposed by the revised code. Ms. Swallow answered yes. <br /> Mr. Shachner asked under what authority a plaintiff would sue. Ms. Swallow indicated they <br /> could sue under loss of potential life. She stated she is not advocating for a position, but merely <br /> doing her job to advise the city on whether a law is enforceable and what potential outcomes <br /> there might be from it. She added that anybody could file a mandamus action asking a higher <br /> court to determine if the legislation was invalid or enforceable. <br /> Chair Shachner stated that the ordinance has not substantially changed from its introduction and <br /> discussion ensued between him and Assistant Director Swallow regarding how public records are <br /> kept in the city and the city's overall duty to maintain public records. An example was brought <br /> forward where unrelated written allegations were brought to the police department counter and <br /> the note was eventually logged into property evidence. <br /> Councilmember Bullock noted that there are federal/state laws that are not local criminal <br /> offenses, making a point to highlight that not pursuing those cases do not result in deficit to LPD <br /> officers. Assistant Director Swallow clarified that the proposed heartbeat bill has multiple <br /> misdemeanors that could be pursued and prosecuted at the local level. She provided an example <br /> where a felony drug case could be investigated and charged at the city level, or it could be bound <br /> over to the county for criminal proceedings. Mr. Bullock cited a lack of city code on abortion, <br /> claiming it is the responsibility of the state to enforce the law. Ms. Swallow noted that Lakewood <br /> does not mirror many state codes, but local officers would still be required to investigate. She <br /> provided an example where the local code does not mirror the state's on OVL Chief Kaucheck <br /> also added examples pertaining to felony drug and gun laws. <br /> Councilmember Bullock stated the importance of considering what Ms. Swallow and Chief <br /> Kaucheck have said, however expressed great concern having the weight of law enforcement <br /> involved in potentially taking very intrusive steps into one of the most serious matters and <br /> private moments of a woman's life. Ms. Swallow noted she did not disagree with that statement; <br /> however it does not allow the city to circumvent public record laws <br /> or allow the dereliction of duty of officers. <br /> Councilmember Kepple asked if officers take reports with every call or interaction that occurs. <br /> Chief Kaucheck stated that there is not a written report on everyone, and that some are <br /> catalogued in the computers due to it being a general complaint or civil matter. Councilmember <br /> Kepple then inquired about whether those documentations would be able to create a pattern of <br /> behavior if someone were to be dealing with harassment. Chief Kaucheck stated it would be <br /> incident specific and reviewed the process of how his department would approach a marijuana <br /> complaint. If an officer smelled nothing, it would not count as a nuisance complaint, however if <br /> no one came to the door and there was a marijuana odor it could be used towards one. Along that <br /> example, Councilmember Kepple noted the state law legalizing hemp has made it difficult to <br /> investigate and cited Chief Kaucheck's previous statements on how costly it is to test hemp to <br /> see if it's actually marijuana. She asked if the department would still send an officer out knowing <br /> that it is illegal to possess and expensive and time consuming to test. Chief Kaucheck indicated <br /> that no one would likely be sent out as officers cannot distinguish between hemp and marijuana <br /> 4 <br />