New policy limits misdemeanor arrests
The next time a “porch pirate” comes to your door to steal a package and you call Columbus police, you might be surprised by their response.
In most instances, the officer will not be able to arrest the person responsible — even if they watch them steal a package. They can’t issue them a summons to appear in court at a later date either.
The change in Columbus Division of Police policy, which went into effect Friday, says officers are not to arrest or issue a summons for most nonviolent misdemeanor offenses, including theft.
Division directives had previously said officers should not do this, but allowed officer discretion. The directive’s language has now been changed to officers shall not, barring them from taking action in the majority of instances.
Officers must now file a report with the City Attorney’s office, which will decide whether charges are warranted.
The directive does still allow for officers to detain a misdemeanor offense suspect to check for any outstanding warrants.
City Attorney Zach Klein’s office issued a statement after the Fraternal Order of Police Capital City Lodge No. 9 raised concerns about the change in directive removing officer discretion, citing the lack of resolve for victims of theft.
“We recognize and support that officers still need to make arrests in certain situations,” Klein said in the statement. “This could include, but is not limited to, when a suspect is violent, resists arrest, has outstanding warrants or is a chronic and repeat offender.”
For example, the directive would likely not affect arresting suspects whom Columbus police reported in a tweet Monday have engaged in a series of shoplifting incidents or attempts recently at Costco stores at Easton Town Center and Polaris because of repeat offenses and increasingly physical responses to store security.
FOP President Keith Ferrell said there are other exceptions, including prostitution-related offenses so human trafficking victims can be separated from their traffickers, OVI cases and cases where there are mitigating circumstances.
“A supervisor can say someone needs to go to jail,” Ferrell said. “But, in theory, there are offenses we could have arrested for that we will not be able to arrest for now.”
Ferrell said he would consider a person who is caught stealing packages from porches on multiple occasions or a person caught stealing packages or breaking into cars in an area that has experienced a rash of those types of crimes to be mitigating circumstances. But the call on whether to arrest sus
protest’s organizers.
Both Abrams and Carruthers emphasized that the proposed legislation wouldn’t violate anyone’s First Amendment rights to speech or peaceful assembly. But they said those who damage property and harm others shouldn’t get a pass.
“When public property is vandalized, we, the law-abiding citizens lose,” Carruthers said. “This is a common-sense bill that supports the right to peacefully protest and assemble while holding accountable those who break the law.”
Dozens of businesses in downtown Cincinnati were damaged during protests this summer, responding to the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police.
Court Street Executive Suites, a Downtown real estate company, filed a class-action lawsuit against 90 people claiming they “participated, aided and abetted, ratified, tacitly consented, and promoted a pattern of riotous conduct.”
Columbus police estimated downtown businesses sustained $1.2 million in damage over four days of protests.
Repairs to the Ohio Statehouse were estimated at more than $158,000. The damage, which included broken windows, damaged pole lights and lanterns and grafitti, occurred between May 28 and June 18.
Then-ohio House Speaker Larry Householder called on Gov. Mike DeWine to protect the taxpayers’ property and told Ohio Highway Patrol to have some respect for itself.