Press Release on Upcoming Parking Lot Regulations

Crime Victim Advocacy Center (CVAC) applauds the efforts of Mayor Slay and his taskforce to increase the safety of vehicles and to reduce the number of break-ins downtown. Our advocates hear on a daily basis about people who have had car windows broken, locks punched out, and other vandalism on top of the property stolen from their vehicle, with few resources to offer for assistance. There are several issues, however, that we believe need to be considered when drafting the new regulations for parking lots. Our interest lies not only in protecting the vehicles of those who park downtown, but also the safety of parking lot patrons and attendants.

What will the attendant position requirements be? Is the mere presence of an attendant anticipated to be a deterrent or are they expected to perform some sort of security role? If the City and parking lot owners are expecting attendants to be a security measure, will they be required to submit to criminal background checks?

Will the attendants be allowed to carry a weapon if they have a CCW permit? Cases like the death of Officer Darryl Hall highlight the fact that bouncers or other unofficial security personnel with concealed weapons can potentially escalate situations, rather then diffuse them.

Will the parking lots be required to provide a secure place for the attendants to work?  While an attendant could be a deterrent to criminal activity, too easily they could also become the victim of a crime of opportunity, especially if they are in possession of all the cash collected for that night’s event. A car break-in spree could quickly turn into an armed robbery. Also, the attendant could face retribution if the criminals realize that he/she is calling the police to report suspicious activity, turning a car break-in spree into an assault, or worse.

What will the training require them to do if they spot suspicious activity? Obviously, it would not be in the best interest of the attendants’ safety to have them confront thieves. However, will they be taught to leave the scene after reporting it to avoid being the victim of an assault or robbery? Will they have to stay at the scene to report continued movements/activities of the criminals to the 911 operator until police arrive?

What will the police response time be? CVAC’s advocates have heard anecdotal stories of victims who try to report damage to their vehicle after an event downtown where the police response took anywhere from half an hour to two hours. In some cases, the victim was encouraged to make a report over the phone because no officers would be available for hours due to a high volume of incoming calls. While those cases involve crimes that were already committed by an offender who had left the scene, CVAC wants the City and P.D. to ensure that the attendants know how to get an immediate police response for the crime in progress.

These are just some of the suggestions and concerns that Crime Victim Advocacy Center would hope the policy drafted by the City would address. While we support the effort to reduce victimization and to make downtown more visitor-friendly, we urge caution and careful consideration before a policy is implemented.

On Flash Flooding, Towing, and Fees

Here is a copy of a Letter to the Editor that CVAC sent to the Post Dispatch this morning:

KSDK Channel 5 reported a story on June 29 about Cherri House, a woman whose car was towed after stalling in rapidly rising flash flooding on I-70. Due to the high volume of stalled cars and the emergency situation, her car was not taken to a tow yard, but was left on a side street. There are no records of where her car was deposited after the towing, and she has been unable to find the car for at least 4 days. (LINK)

The story ends with the suggestion from employees at the City’s towing division that she “report [the car] stolen and hope the police can track it down.” Reporting it stolen, when there is no confirmation that is the case, is potentially a waste of valuable police resources, as well as the time and resources of the car owner. Crime Victim Advocacy Center feels it is important to remember that, if the car is recovered as a stolen auto, it may be towed to a city lot at Ms. House’s expense if she cannot make it to the recovery site in the limited time that a responding officer can devote to staying with the vehicle.

In the City of St. Louis and many surrounding jurisdictions, victims are responsible for paying towing fees even if their car is reported as stolen before it is recovered. We ask that the City be cognizant of this situation and do whatever is necessary to avoid subjecting Ms. House and those in similar situations to this undue stress. We also ask that the City and Police Department reconsider this policy in all stolen auto cases to prevent re-victimizing citizens who have already had a crime committed against them.

How much information is too much?

The discovery of a missing 18-month-old toddler in a dumpster in the 2300 block of South Jefferson this week certainly evokes strong emotional reactions. Anytime a child dies unexpectedly, the desire to know more can be unflagging. Many citizens want to know what the cause of death was, who could have committed such a crime, whether family members may have been involved, and the answer to any number of other questions. Those of us outside of the victim’s family and the police department investigation must turn to news outlets to get whatever information, albeit preliminary, that we can gather. Still, when does the flow of information become too much? Crossing a line between providing necessary and useful information and somehow just feeding a public desire for salacious details? 

Just such a question arose in the CVAC office in response to a photo linked from the St. Louis Post Dispatch story "St. Louis toddler found dead in trash bin was beaten, police say." That image shows the inside of a trash dumpster and is captioned, “MAY 25, 2011: After police left the crime scene Wednesday morning, garbage remained inside a [sic] alley trash bin in the 2300 block of South Jefferson Avenue where an 18-month-old St. Louis boy was found dead hours earlier.”
 

It is undoubtedly a fine line to walk when making decisions about language and images associated with horrible stories like this one, and it is also one where the freedom of the press to do their job is extremely important. The first question I would ask is why the image was taken in the first place, what potential news value it had. Assuming that the editors found value in the existence of that photo, the next decision is whether or not to include it in their coverage. In Covering Crime and Justice: A Guide for Journalists, the authors suggest a set of four questions to consider when deciding whether to publish potentially graphic or disturbing material. Allow me to apply those to this case:

1. Is this graphic detail necessary to tell the story?

No, the majority of people have either used a dumpster or seen them enough to have a frame of reference for what the inside looks like.

2. Will this detail help the community at large?

No, the inside of that specific dumpster is of little relevance to community safety. As previously mentioned, many citizens already have a frame of reference for the inside of a dumpster.

3. Will readers or viewers be offended by such details?

Yes, it is possible.

4. Will the victim suffer more because of the details?

Yes, if you consider the family of the deceased to be victims of the crime, as well. It is also possible that the victim’s family could find that picture now or in a future internet search. Having such a specific image of where their lost loved one was left could increase their emotional suffering. Families should have the decision of whether to view crime scene pictures either with the investigating officer or in court with a trained advocate, rather than accidentally coming upon it on a news site.

In my estimation, this test advises against posting this particular picture.