Showing posts with label Susan Danielsen. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Susan Danielsen. Show all posts

Greensboro council calls emergency meeting to discuss teen curfew

The Greensboro City Council called an emergency meeting tomorrow (Wednesday) morning at 9:30 a.m. to discuss reinstating the teen curfew. After several small fights involving young people downtown on Saturday night, leading to 11 arrests, council is planning a brief public meeting.

A rumor circulated last week prior to the arrests Saturday that council would be taking another look at the curfew, but numerous council members including Mayor Robbie Perkins said they hadn't heard anything about it.

Police spokesperson Susan Danielsen said that of the 11 people arrested Saturday night downtown between 11:30 p.m. and 1 a.m., one was 16-years old, five were 17-years old, four were 18-years old and one was 20-years old. Four small-scale fights along Elm Street near Center City Park resulted in the arrests on a variety of charges including assault on a law enforcement officer and inciting a riot.

"We did have to use pepper spray and we did have to physically restrain some people and [there was] one use of a taser," Danielsen said. "We also responded to a call of 'shots fired' in that area. We had an officer who saw and heard a muzzle flash."

There were no injuries in the apparent use of a firearm, she said, and the incident appeared to be separate from the fights. None of the small-scale fights were related, as far as police could determine, and there was nothing police could identify that united the participants or a mass of people at the park other than age. 


Danielsen said between 300 and 400 young people — not all teens, she added, "but they’re certainly not 50" — were gathered at Center City Park playing music and hanging out, adding that despite some news reports there was no riot.


Greensboro police called for back up from UNCG police and the Guilford County Sheriff's Department, though it is currently unclear when the call was issued. Danielsen was unsure if the incidents were an anomaly or part of a pattern of smaller issues with young people downtown at night, saying she'd have to check the data. 


"As the weather gets nicer you expect more people to be outside," she said. "It’s kind of the natural rhythm to have more events occur in the summer. We’re looking at a lot of options because this is not just a police responsibility."



Police were already planning to have an increased presence downtown for the Fourth of July, and Danielsen said it was important to keep things in context and remember most people who will attend Fourth of July events downtown are peaceful. Danielsen encouraged parents to know where their kids are for the holiday and to hold structured events if possible. 

The incidents Saturday were not related to a nearby Saturday Night Lights event that happened at Festival Park earlier in the evening, Danielsen said, adding that police were involved in the event and attendees left peacefully. The fights also didn't include people coming downtown to go to clubs or people leaving earlier after eating dinner, she said. 

UPDATE: The city's official meeting announcement says council will discuss reimplementing the teen curfew "in the central business district for approximately 60 days." The meeting will be in the plaza level conference room of the Melvin Municipal Office Building downtown, and the announcement refers to it as "an emergency meeting."

When asked if the fights were an anomaly, Perkins said, "Obviously we had a similar problem a couple of years ago" and added that "We can’t afford not to take action." Perkins said the response would be multi-faceted and that the city will hold a meeting with community leaders at 2 p.m. tomorrow to discuss other aspects of a solution. The meeting will likely be in the same room as the earlier council meeting and is open to the public.

"The real question we’ve got to ask is, 'Why do we have so many young people in the streets of Greensboro at 12, 1 o’clock in the morning?'" Perkins said.

City responds to questions about public records, noise callers

The city of Greensboro and YES! Weekly have been going back and forth about public records for a while now, discussing what qualifies a public information especially in the wake of our cover story about police surveillance of activists. We've been going back and forth about whether the names of people filing noise complaints is public record. Who cares? We think it's worth knowing if all the calls complaining about Greene Street club are coming from just one or two people. Plus if it's public record, the city would be required to release it.

To try and sort things out, our news editor Jordan Green and Greensboro/Guilford County reporter Eric Ginsburg sat down with City Attorney Mujeeb Shah-Khan, Police Attorney Jim Clark and City spokesperson Donnie Turlington on June 10. One of the topics for discussion: Why did the police department release the name of a 911 caller to us in the Sebastian Village case but not the names of people who called about Greene Street, even though both were noise complaints?

After reviewing the state's general statutes governing public records (available here, specifically C and D), we reached some areas of agreement. North Carolina Press Association lawyer Amanda Martin told YES! Weekly that the names are a matter of public record according to the statutes, but after careful review of the ordinance with Clark and Shah-Khan, I am pretty confident that they're accurately interpreting the statute. 

While the names of the callers don't have to be released, it will become public record in this case once it is given to Greene Street's lawyer as part of the discovery for pending litigation between the city and the club over the noise ordinance. Until then, the city's hands are tied. YES! Weekly requested a copy and the city agreed to release it unless the court issues a protective order (which seems unlikely). 

We also agreed that the statute specifically protects the identity of "complaining witnesses" using 911, and that if a complaint came to the city through another avenue (as they sometimes did prior to the noise debate last year) it is public record. The city is currently reviewing our request to see if complaints came in outside of the 911 system. 

As for the discrepancy in when the city provided a caller's name: At the time, Shah-Khan said sometimes "the left hand doesn't always know what the right hand is doing," but after Clark went back and reviewed what happened, he provided a more detailed explanation on Monday. Below is the full text of his response, and the emphasis is mine. 

"I have looked at the matter, and what I found is that Susan Danielsen released the name mistakenly.  At the time of your earlier PIRT request for 911 information coming from noise complaints, Susan reached the same conclusion that you did – that G.S. 132-1.4 did not apply to reported civil violations.  Since this was a new situation, and Susan believed that she was very clear about her understanding of the statute, she released the information in good faith.  The legal question of applicability of G.S. 132-1.4 as it related to noise calls was not settled, as it had not been addressed by an interpretation from any attorney in the City Attorney’s Office.  Susan understandably viewed the disclosure as a simple, routine matter.  However, as we discussed, the applicability of G.S. 132-1.4 needed to be considered, which required a legal interpretation.  Susan acted in good faith to comply with the City’s procedures for routine release.

Since then, of course, the City Attorney’s Office has researched the matter and given its advice, which as you know is that 911 caller identities are confidential for the reasons we explained during our meeting about a week ago.  With this in mind, we believe the earlier mistaken disclosure was inadvertent, and we also think that it is very unlikely to have negative consequences for the parties involved or the caller.

Thank you for meeting with us and giving us a fair opportunity to explain our reasons and analysis for why the information must be withheld.  Frankly, we’re quite often frustrated ourselves, when it comes to the application of State laws concerning confidentiality.  We frequently run into times where more information available to the public would help put to rest fears concerning the lack of openness in GPD or government operations in general.  However, to the extent such disclosure conflicts with State laws, we are bound to follow the law as best we understand it. 

If I can be of further assistance, please let me know!  Hope you had a great weekend.

Best regards, Jim"

As soon as the the results of our inquiry about noise complaints about Greene Street outside of 911 calls  and the names made available in the discovery are public, we will publish them. Stay posted.

No drones for Greensboro Police Department

Clark talking about problems with the noise ordinance
"Where we can measure, until we learn how to hover, will always be a problem." -Police Attorney Jim Clark

A few weeks ago at a meeting about Greensboro's noise ordinance, Clark remarked about the difficulty of measuring decibel levels in a "sound shadow," which is created by amplified noise emanating from a rooftop (think Greene Street club and Center Pointe, at least until the club puts a grill in).

Clark didn't say anything about drones, but his comment about hovering rattled around in my head for a while after the meeting. Is Greensboro considering drones to monitor big public events, handle noise complaints, look for stolen vehicles or anything similar?

Other cities have toyed with the idea of drones, with some like Seattle abandoning plans after concerns about surveillance. Campus police at the University of Alabama in Huntsville are even getting drones to monitor the college. I figured it was unlikely here, but not far-fetched, so I asked if the department had looked into, discussed or done anything about drones.  Turns out the department has talked about it, but there are no plans in the works.

"We don't currently have drones and are not forecasted to get any," police spokesperson Susan Danielsen said via e-mail. "We do think they would be helpful in searching for missing persons."

Screenshot from the News & Record
UPDATE: While the total number of votes in this poll, conducted by the News & Record on their website last month, is unknown, the results show that an overwhelming number of people who participated are concerned about police using drones. Out of nearly 1,000 votes, about 85 percent said they are concerned.

A link to the poll results is no longer live on the newspaper's website. The poll was a sidebar on the homepage of the paper's site.