Last night, Bethlehem's "Committee of Public Safety" had a meeting at Town Hall. The sole item on the agenda was a progress report about whether the City's marijuana ordinance, as opposed to state law, is being used. The City ordinance makes possession of a small amount of marijuana a summary offense, while state law makes it a misdemeanor. Chief Mark DiLuzio noted that in the Lehigh County portion of Bethlehem, officers must follow the state law in accordance with Lehigh County DA Jim Martin's instructions. To be consistent, many officers feel they should use the state law on the Northampton County side of Monocacy Creek as well. Doing otherwise would open them up to charges of bias and racism. He argued that officers should have the discretion to decide for themselves whether to use the state law or city ordinance. He added that marijuana possession "should be decriminalized by the state. What you're doing is creating a problem."
DiLuzio's leadership was called into question by Council members Willie Reynolds and Paige Van Wirt. "We're not waiting for Harrisburg because we believe in local power," asserted Van Wirt. She called what's happening "unequal justice." Basically, Council members want the Chief to force officers to charge under the ordinance, something the Chief is unwilling to do. "You have to let them use their discretion," he argued. He said Council should trust officers. "I stand behind them 100%."
DiLuzio pointed out that if Bethlehem was wholly within one county, this would be no issue.
Police respond to 189 emergency calls a day.
Newcomer Grace Crampsie Smith suggested that officers should be made aware that being charged with possession under state law can have adverse consequences to a student trying to get into college.
During the period between July 2018 (date of enactment of Bethlehem's marijuana ordinance) and January 2020, Bethlehem police charged 289 people with possession of a small amount of marijuana. Only 19 were charged under the city ordinance.
Forty-three percent of these charges were filed against South Side residents.
Under the state statute, charges were filed against 76 whites, 71 blacks, 121 Hispanics and 2 "others." The local ordinance was filed against 5 whites, 4 blacks and 10 Hispanics.
The FOP was invited to yesterday's meeting, but declined to come. I believe this police union made the right call by refusing to appear in front of Council. I get very leery when local officials begin telling cops which laws they want enforced. If cops listen, it's only a matter of times before local officials begin instructing them not to charge this or that friend with other crimes. From there, corruption is inevitable. Van Wirt believes in "local power," but when it comes to criminal law, that can be dangerous.
(Originally posted 12:00 am)
18 comments:
Reverse discrimination! Whites are being arrested more than blacks!
Next you'll tell me more whites than blacks are killed by police gun fire.
PS Support your police. I will say however, that i think the ordinance should be used for small amounts. But the actions of the offender need to be taken into consideration. Such as cooperation. Compliance. Once the race card comes out, all bets off. The individual determines their own fate for the most part. It's only a matter of time before pot is legal.
Number seems low for the City. I guarantee officers are using their discretion and not arresting people for a gram of weed.
The number of arrests is rather low. As the Chief said yesterday,m the City's 154 officers do not hunt down people smoking weed or "jump out of the bushes" to get them. But Council wants cops to arrest under a city ordinance as opposed to a more draconian state statute. DiLuzio defended officers, saying they should have the discretion to make that call. So Council members Reynolds and Van Wirt attacked DiLuzio's leadership.
The problem, if you can all it that, is that Bethlehem is in two counties. LC DA Jim Martin has instructed officers to use the state statute. NorCo DA Terry Houck is fine with either state statute or ordinance. Cops think it is only fair to use the statute under those circumstances.
The FOP was invited to yesterday's meeting but declined to come. I happen to agree with their refusal. I get very leery when local officials begin instructing cops on who they may or may not arrest. That is when real corruption begins.
If I remember some of my law background correctly, and please correct me if I am wrong, when a state statue is applied evenly and fairly across the commonwealth, no municipality can ignore the state statue by creating their own laws. Good example is gun regulations.
State law supersedes Local Ordinances, this Page Van Wart should take a class on government and laws as they apply
In the case of gun laws, the state legislature has expressly preempted municipalities from establishing their own laws. Under what is known as Dillon's Rule, a municipality only has the authority granted to it by the Commonwealth. For example, a city like Allentown has no authority to adopt an ordinance banning cellphone use while driving. That is a subject of state law.
The ordinance decriminalizing marijuana is probably preempted. First, it conflicts with state. Second, I believe the state law concerning drugs is intended to be exclusive. Third, state law is so pervasive that it should preclude local law on the same topic. Fourth, although officers have individual discretion, there is a need for uniformity when it comes to enforcement of laws concerning drug use. Fifth, the local ordinance frustrates the goal of the state legislature.
Just as Bethlehem has no authority to abolish speed limits along Route 22, I believe it has no authority to decriminalize drug use. I am unaware of any case in which a court has concluded that a municipality can enact its own drug laws, but have only done cursory research.
I agree with decriminalization. But I believe decriminalization should be decided by the state, not Bethlehem. I am quite leery when local officials begin sticking their noses into police matters. While there has to be oversight, local officials should have little say concerning what laws are enforced. The dangers of favoritism and corruption exist when local officials begin instructing cops what laws they want enforced. I have seen this. I know cops who have experienced it.
The social progressives on Bethlehem City Council are taking Bethlehem in a very dangerous and expensive direction. Instead of doing what a city should be doing, they are spending all of our time and money to ban the bags, for Medicare for all, environmental studies, pedestrian bridge to nowhere studies, abandoning criminal laws, ineffective wage equality ordinance, and no income housing while they fight among themselves.
bethlehem city council is gearing up for the mayor's race with donchez being a lame duck
About this marijuana issue. Back in my concert days not a single security person at the Spectrum (Phila) was concerned with marijuana, I remember being on the third tier getting stoned in a cloud of smoke (even though having none). They were far more concerned about bottles and hard objects which could be thrown on stage. Aerosmith walked out after Steve got pelted in the head with one. Much was the same with all the local concert venues except for the Roxy which had zero tolerance, I suppose the lesson here is alcohol could be more dangerous then pot in those situations :-)
Anonymous Anonymous said...
The social progressives on Bethlehem City Council are taking Bethlehem in a very dangerous and expensive direction. Instead of doing what a city should be doing, they are spending all of our time and money to ban the bags, for Medicare for all, environmental studies, pedestrian bridge to nowhere studies, abandoning criminal laws, ineffective wage equality ordinance, and no income housing while they fight among themselves.
March 4, 2020 at 8:05 AM
Sounds like they are being directed by the County class clown Tara Zarinsky
Isn't VanWirt special? So, she can rewrite laws,tell the Police Chief how to do his job and let's not forget-she's a DR! How do we let these arrogant elitists on Council? She brings self importance to a whole new level!
Sam Murray is not Irish=Lebanese Fraud (fixed an All Star Vote for his son Joe=flecked up)
ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY, Council wants the ordinance enforced so they get all the money, ordinances cannot supersede a state statute which only gives the city pennies for an arrest and council has no training on how to do police work and should stay out of the chiefs business, this is a state wide issue where council members think they control the police and are the bosses, CORUPTION AT ITS BEST!!! Stick to your politics and ass kissing and leave the policing to the people who are certified to do the job or go to the police academy, become an officer, get rank, and then you can direct officers.
Not sure what the confusion is about? Council voted 7-0 to pass the ordinance. The police should follow the City Ordinance first then the State of Pa. second. They work and represent and protect the residents of Bethlehem. If the police don't agree with the City ordinance, then write up the offender under both the City ordinance and the State ordinance and let the judge decide what to do! If the judge is not ruling the way the majority of residents in the City desire....they will be voted out of office. Its not that difficult. Its called Democracy.
On this issue, the City cannot usurp the power and authority of the State. The City of Bethlehem is a "Home Rule Municipality." They are no longer a city of the third class or a city of the second class but they are a "Home Rule Municipality" and absolutely may not pass any bill that usurps the power of the State. Have your solicitor look at the Home Rule Law and you will see what the City is doing is "ILLEGAL".
10:38 is absolutely correct. I don't like the police using their "discretion" on these matters. That strikes at the very heart of what this ordinance is intended to do - to NO LONGER force these non-violent offenders through criminal justice. It's an outrage that police have been directed to cease and yet defy the ordinance perhaps because they don't like the smirk on a face or whether or not the officer was having a good day or not.
10:38 PM, 9:47 AM. No clue, uh?
10:13 - Try and speak with a coherent thought.
Post a Comment