ACLU Says Cranston Is in “Flagrant Violation of the Law”

ACLU Says Cranston Is in “Flagrant Violation of the Law”

On Monday, the battle between the ACLU of Rhode Island and the City of Cranston turned even more bitter. The ACLU issued a statement calling on Cranston Mayor Kenneth Hopkins and the Cranston City Council to “take immediate action to halt what appears to be a long-standing and flagrant violation of the law by the Cranston Police Department” – a traffic stop quota policy, requiring police officers to stop a minimum of two cars during their patrol shifts. 

GoLocal reached out to Hopkins for comment, but had not received a response at the time of publication.

In a letter sent to Hopkins and Council, the ACLU called the policy “not only deeply problematic in and of itself, [but] it also leaves us with little doubt that it has contributed to a serious racial profiling problem in the City.” 

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

This battle between the ACLU and Cranston has been ongoing for four years.

In April at the time that the city announced it would discontinue its litigation pertaining to panhandling -- Hopkins had said in a statement that the cost of continuing litigation is exposing the city to significant financial costs. “I supported the majority on the City Council in 2017 consistent with my strong views that our citizens need the best protection in our neighborhoods and on our streets,” said Hopkins.

“After consultation with the city’s special legal counsel and the city solicitor’s department, I have determined it is in the Cranston taxpayers’ best interest to end this litigation,” said Hopkins. He stated, “During the transition and in my first few months in office I have been carefully reviewing the various pending litigation involving the City.  Based on the posture of this case in Federal Court and the recommendation of Marc DeSisto, our well-respected special counsel, I felt that we should find an acceptable resolution that minimizes future financial exposure to the City.”

Hopkins said that as part of the settlement, the City will reimburse the ACLU for legal expenses incurred. He said the City will reimburse the ACLU a total of $140,000 that can be paid over two fiscal years.  “We have the funds available and our finance department will coordinate payment with legal counsel.” Hopkins stated, “While $140,000 is not insignificant, my former council colleague, the late John Lanni, had predicted that a challenge to the ordinance would end up costing the city $500,000 (see minutes of February 15, 2017, special council meeting).

ACLU Cites

In 2010, the R.I. General Assembly passed a law explicitly prohibiting police departments from establishing “any requirement regarding the number of arrests or investigative stops made…by an officer regarding motor vehicle traffic or parking violations.” However, Cranston police department emails obtained by the ACLU between 2017 and 2020 document the “two car stop” mandate for police cars on patrol. In February and May of this year, the ACLU wrote police chief Michael Winquist and asked for an explanation of the emails and an immediate halt to the policy, but Winquist never responded, prompting the ACLU’s letter to the Mayor and City Council.

The letter states: 

“To see a police department brazenly violate the law in this manner is unconscionable. Worse, it undoubtedly helps explain the Cranston Police Department’s consistently disturbing racial disparities in stopping and searching cars, as documented by annual analyses of traffic stop data performed pursuant to state law by Central Connecticut State University.  

“… When police are put in the position of choosing which cars to pull over merely for the sake of meeting an arbitrary quota, rather than for a legitimate public safety need, it can only encourage discriminatory treatment of motorists. In addition, the anxiety and trauma that can be generated by a police stop goes without saying. For most people, it is an unnerving experience, but for people of color, it is particularly fraught.  

“… Particularly at a time when there is widespread public agreement about the need for greater police accountability, the department’s actions can only promote disrespect for, and cynicism about, law enforcement practices.”  

The letter called on the Mayor and City Council to “order an immediate halt to this practice, investigate its origins and the reasons it has continued for so long in violation of the law, and take all other necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that those responsible for this law-breaking are held accountable. This investigation should proceed even if the Department indicates it plans to halt, or has halted, this long-standing practice.”