2/21/1989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 76 f."GF.186 FIRST MEETING At the first meeting of the Committee, the Assistant State Attorney David Morgan pointed out that the existing loitering statutes are not a viable tool to combat crack cocaine dealing on public streets and in parking areas. A conviction for loitering under state law can only be obtained under circumstances that warrant justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. Absent some actual threat to persons or property, a person loitering for the purpose of drug dealing is not subject to an arrest that will stick. People cannot be arrested simply for being in a public place. Mr. Morgan was open to any other alternative approaches that would truly.. help to combat crack dealing. Before proceeding further, the Committee resolved to check on the experience that other cities and counties had had in trying to implement this statute. CHECK OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS A complete summary of the experience of cities that had set up Drug Nuisance Abatement Boards is attached to this memo. To summarize, there was considerable difference from city to city in how the Boards were set up and how they were utilized. The City of Miami Beach and the City of Orlando had full time legal staffs affiliated with the Police Departments who were using the Boards to prove up the unlawful sale of drugs. There were substantial _problems in using this approach and the Committee recommends against that approach. A more suitable approach would be to combine some of the best of Gainesville and Riviera Beach experience. In Gainesville, each time a conviction is obtained for an unlawful sale of controlled substances at a particular premises, the owner of those premises is notified of that conviction and advised to abate the nuisance which allows the drug dealing to go on. The same thing occurs after a second conviction. After a third conviction, a police officer would appear before the Drug Nuisance Abatement Board and present certified copies of the three convictions and after hearing any defense of the owner, decide whether to take any action to declare the premises a public nuisance and enter orders which may include shutting down the business activity for a period of up to one year. The City of Gainesville uses a paid hearing officer from Tallahassee or a local attorney under contract as a hearing officer for the Drug Nuisance Abatement Board rather than having a citizen board. The City of Riviera Beach utilizes its Code Enforcement Board as the Drug Nuisance Abatement Board. This would have a significant advantage. In Miami Beach, the experience has been that orders are often ignored and in order to obtain compliance, the attorney must go to court to seek an injunction enforcing the order. Were the order to be issued by the Code Enforcement Board, any failure to -Obey the order would be a violation subject to penalties of up to $250 per day which could be a lien against the nuisance property. SECOND MEETING The Committee met again to discuss the' experience of other cities and determined that there would be some advantages to going ahead and setting up such a board. The representative of the Sheriff's Department agreed that their officers could present evidence in the form of certified convictions to the Board. The State Attorney's Office agreed to draft an evidentiary checklist of questions that should be entered 26