Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Minnesota Judge Orders Minneapolis to Hire More Cops
I came across a story at the Epoch Times (here) reporting that a Minnesota judge had ordered the City of Minneapolis to hire more police officers. Initially, this struck me as judicial overreach, as this is not the sort of decision typically within the scope of the judicial power.
So I read the decision itself (here), just entered yesterday, and it looks correct to me. It turns out that the Minneapolis City Charter requires the City to have “a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per resident.”
The case presented some interesting legal and factual twists. The City Charter did not define “police force,” and it wasn’t clear whether the necessary number of “employees” should include only sworn officers, or should also include other police department personnel. The judge decided that the term “police force” includes only sworn officers:
- “Clearly, the legislative intent of the use of the term ‘police force’ as opposed to ‘police department’ was to narrow the meaning to sworn police officers, exclusive of administrative staff and employees.”
- “The Court’s interpretation of the phrase ‘police force’ to include only sworn officers is further bolstered by the Charter’s history and purpose.”
There was also a question about the relevant population to use. There is a provision in the City Charter stating that “any reference to population or other enumeration refers to the latest decennial federal census” — but the 2020 Census has been delayed. The Petitioners sought a ruling based on an annual review of the estimated population of Minneapolis. The judge took a middle position, quite properly in my view:
The Court disagrees with portions of both parties’ arguments on this issue. Clearly, it was never the intention of the drafters of the City Charter to continue to use a decennial census that is more than ten years old, nor did they likely foresee that a decennial census would be untimely or delayed as the 2020 Census is, for example. The same can be said, however, for Petitioners’ argument, i.e., it was never the intention of the drafters of the City Charter to track population numbers based upon an annual review.
The Court decided to use the 2019 population estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts — 429,606 — pending the release of the official 2020 Census figure. This population figure, multiplied by the 0.0017 officers per resident as required by the City Code, yields a requirement that Minneapolis has 730.33 sworn officers.
The parties stipulated to many of the facts, including the following figures:
- The total number of sworn MPD officers on April 10, 2021, was 743 plus 92 on continuous leave.
- The MPD projects that it will have the following number of sworn MPD officers on the payroll in the future:
- 690 on June 1, 2021 (plus 46 on long term leave)
- 649 on January 1, 2022
- 637 on April 1, 2022
- 669 on June 1, 2022
- 721 on January 1, 2023
Accordingly, the Court ordered the City Council and Mayor as follows:
YOU ARE COMMANDED to immediately, after receipt of a copy of the writ, take all necessary action required by the Court’s Order dated July 1, 2021, to fund a police force of at least 0.0017 employees per resident, which will total either 730.33 sworn police officers or a number of sworn officers equaling 0.0017 of the 2020 census population when published later this year, whichever is higher.
The judge on the case was the Hon. Jamie L. Anderson, bio here, originally appointed by Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty in 2010, and later elected in 2012 and 2018. Good for her.
Published in Policing
Fascinating. I wonder how common such charter rules are.
A growing trouble in modern America is that laws were not established to make explicit expectations that would have been common sense 50-100+ years ago. That allows all sorts of shenanigans that would not have been tolerated by past generations.
Frankly, I think the point at which some common sense rules must be enshrined in law is the point at which laws cease to govern except as opportunistic power plays.
Well said.
Are “employees” necessarily cops? Could they crisis counselors?
The judge found the charter language saying “police force” meant sworn officers. I guess if counselors became somehow sworn LEOs, that’d fly. But doubtful.
I have to agree. There is no way a judge should tell a city/county/state they have to raise taxes to pay for whatever, or to hire more or less of any type of worker.
But if it’s in the law books as part of the city charter, what else is there? Judges enforce city ordinances about how tall your lawn can be and such, why not laws about how many cops they’re supposed to have? Or laws about pensions, and a million other things.
I took the time to check here and out here where we don’t have any of the big city issues we manage to drastically exceed that 0.0017% – like by 40%- and except for the elected Sheriff ours all pull patrol duty. Kind of curious how Minneapolis stacks up against like sized cities.
Yes, that’s correct.
The progressives on Reddit are scoffing at this b/c the suit was brought by “right-wing nutters,” aka The Center of the American Experiment. The idea that people on the North side want protection from civil disorder is an infuriating case of false consciousness.
Very interesting. Our sheriff’s office is right on that ratio. I did some googling and NYC is almost right on and Los Angeles is 50 percent over. In the case of our county we have the city PD in the county seat that provides officers that I didn’t count, and LA has all those cities embedded in LA county that I’m sure skews the numbers on the ground.