Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Lakewood Informer

Resident generated news about Lakewood, Colorado

Crime

Lakewood’s Slippery Slope of Not Prosecuting Crime

Guest Post by Chuck Bedard Lakewood citizens are becoming increasingly frustrated over the amount of shoplifting, vandalism, and “less important” crimes that are not being pursued by the police.  And rightfully so! Not long ago, my wife and I watched a man, pushing a shopping cart full of items at Home Depot, breeze through the self-checkout area – bypassing the opportunity to pay for the items – and head to the parking lot.  We looked at the cashier/attendant with stunned expressions on our faces, as we watched the Home Depot personnel do nothing.  Her response was, “The police won’t do anything, so we just let them go.” For a fleeting moment, I thought about canceling my purchase and just loading the items in the cart and heading to my car… Remember, I said “for a fleeting moment.”  I wonder if I would have been treated in the same manner as the thief who had the shopping cart full of items.  Chances are good that Home Depot would have alerted the police if I tried to steal the same merchandise. If I had been pursued by the police and the other person wasn’t, it would be a case of “Selective Prosecution.”  Selective prosecution should be distinguished from “Prosecutorial Discretion.”  Historically, prosecutors have had broad discretion to pursue those cases where the facts support a conviction and elect not to pursue matters where the facts are less clear.  However, as we read the news the lines between “Prosecutorial Discretion” and “Selective Prosecution”  have become blurred – perhaps intentionally. “Prosecutorial Discretion” has been in the news recently when a federal prosecutor elected not to charge Mr. X in a matter relating to stolen classified documents.  Mr. X kept those documents in his garage next to his Corvette.  In electing not to indict Mr. X, the prosecutor noted that he was an elderly man with a poor memory and those facts made it problematic in obtaining a conviction.  Many legal authorities believed this prosecutor’s decision was far more political than legal, thereby removing this case as a matter of traditional and historical “prosecutorial discretion.”  After all, the prosecutor had the individual “dead to right.”  The facts were indisputable.  In reality, the results of this case amounted to “Selective Prosecution” rather than “Prosecutorial Discretion.”  Don’t think for a minute that you or I would not be indicted if Top Secret documents were found in your garage next to your Ford station wagon… even if we were old and had a poor memory. The City provides disparate treatment to different classes of individuals. Therein lies a big problem for the City of Lakewood (or any municipality).  The City provides disparate treatment to different classes of individuals.  The City seems to rely on some form of “prosecutorial discretion” for its diversionary programs that elect not to charge certain classes of individuals with crimes even though the facts of the crime are indisputable. Or, in the alternative, dismissing or reducing charges for those classes of individuals.  In reality, it is “Selective Prosecution,” and it is only a matter of time before Lakewood citizens decide they are fed up with being treated this way.  Based on current practices ANYONE can load up their cart at any store, and exit the store with the cash still in their pockets, knowing they won’t be prosecuted. In other words, in the Home Depot scenario above, if the police elected not to charge the vagrant pushing the cart full of stolen property out of the Home Depot store, they cannot charge anyone pursuing the same activities.  To do otherwise is “selective prosecution” which the courts have said violates the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.  (The 14th Amendment is often referred to as the Equal Protection Clause.) Some might suggest that a law that isn’t enforced should be removed from the books, or in the alternative, in the case of shoplifting, making it legal if it is under a certain dollar threshold.  The “theory” is that people who need items like food to survive would have this resource.  There again, legal authorities have said that you cannot prosecute only certain classes of people.  If a vagrant can’t or won’t be charged then no one can be charged. That is the essence of  the prohibition of “selective prosecution.” Lakewood City Council seems to think that shoplifting by anyone who can say they need the items for food to survive, should not be prosecuted.  Likewise, other “low-level” crimes like panhandling/washing your window at the stop light, and public urination/defecation are not worthy of attention by the police.  But remember City of Lakewood – if you allow one group to get away with something, you must allow all. Most honorable citizens believe that all crimes should be pursued and pursued equally.  As parents, we know that if you don’t enforce the small stuff, it becomes impossible to enforce the big stuff.  This isn’t rocket science but it is a matter of fair treatment of all citizens and all businesses.  If everyone started pushing their shopping carts out of Home Depot, King Soopers, or Walmart, without paying, those stores would be closed and Lakewood’s tax revenue would be in the toilet. Reader Recommended Business: Gabriela Couture

A Look at Crime Statistics in Lakewood

Guest post from Bill Foshag During public comments at the February 26th Lakewood City Council meeting, Tom Gonzales, a Lakewood resident remarked that he was told by Lakewood Police Department (“LPD”) officers there was nothing they could do about the panhandling (window washers) on street corners – that the police “were handcuffed”.  Later, Councilman Rich Olver posed a question based on these remarks to Deputy City Manager Ben Goldstein – is it true that our officers are “handcuffed” or is there something they could do about panhandling on street corners?  Mr. Goldstein answered that it depends on the circumstances (what safety issues are at play), that it’s a matter of resources (not having enough staff), and that “it is a complex issue”.  Mr. Goldstein suggested that LPD could put together a report for Council that would address the issue.  Under Lakewood Municipal Code 12.18.020, it would seem that window washing would be clearly prohibited: A. It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit employment, business, contributions, or sales of any kind, or collect monies for the same, from the occupant of any vehicle traveling upon any street or highway when such solicitation or collection: 1. Causes the person performing the activity to enter onto the traveled portion of a street or highway; 2. Involves the person performing the activity to be located upon any median area which separates traffic lanes for vehicular travel in opposite directions; 3. Causes the traffic on the traveled portion of a street or highway to be delayed or impeded; or 4. The person performing the activity is located such that vehicles cannot move into a legal parking area to safely conduct the transaction B. It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or attempt to solicit employment, business, contributions, or sales of any kind from the occupant of any vehicle traveling upon any controlled-access highway including any entrance to or exit from such highway. Why certain city codes are not being enforced is perplexing.  Seeing window washers at Alameda and Wadsworth at mid-day, walking between the lanes of traffic and between cars while trying to return to the median when the light turns green is clearly not safe for those individuals or for the drivers who have to maneuver their cars to avoid hitting them.  Common sense would dictate that it would not be difficult for an officer witnessing this activity to pull over and issue a citation – there should be nothing “complex” about this.  This is not the fault of the officers, who are employed to serve the citizens of Lakewood, and put their lives on the line for us every day. They follow the instructions they are given by their managers and whatever guidelines the City has adopted concerning law enforcement. It appears that a decision has been made by someone in a leadership position within the city that certain laws will not be enforced. Reviewing the numbers A review of crime figures in Lakewood might help shed a little light on what seems to be happening. Lakewood publishes a couple of reports containing crime statistics each year, a Chief’s Report and a LPD Annual Report.  Looking at these reports for the reporting years of 2019 thru 2022 (the latest year available), the reports typically include the number of criminal offenses for the report year, plus the figures for a couple of previous years for comparison.  However, the crimes that are reported each year are not always the same.  An example being the 2018 and 2019 LPD Annual reports do not include a number of property crimes (mostly fraud and some theft related crimes) that are included in reports for 2020 and later. There are also some unexplained differences in the annual totals that are reported. For instance, crimes for the year 2019 total 12,127 in the 2021 LPD Annual Report, 12,299 in the 2020 report, 11,877, in the 2019 report.  Some of these differences may be due to newer reporting standards.  Most law enforcement agencies across the US report crimes to the FBI using the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which succeeds and expands on the earlier Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system that dates back to the 1920’s.  However, not all agencies in the US report to NIBRS, as some have incomplete historical data and others are still working to convert their UCR data to NIBRS. Crime data thru 2023 for Lakewood is in NIBRS, but Lakewood yet to publish their LPD Annual Report for 2023.  NIBRS breaks crimes in to two major groups, Group A Offenses and Group B Offenses. Group A Offenses, generally considered more serious offenses, are further broken down and grouped as Crimes Against Persons, Crimes Against Property, and Crimes Against Society.   Group B Offenses are generally less serious offenses and include trespassing, disorderly conduct, DUI, liquor violations, and “other offenses”.  Group B Offenses report actual arrests, whereas Group A Offenses only reflect the report of a crime whether or not an arrest is made. The NIBRS data lends itself better to analysis as it is more detailed, complete, and consistent compared to the data that is in the LPD Annual Reports and the Chief’s Reports.   The NIBRS figures show normal fluctuations in reported offense totals from year to year. Three-year averaging was used to remove some of the statistical noise and establish a longer term trend.  Looking at average number of crimes reported for 2017 thru 2019, compared to 2021 thru 2023, the NIBRS data is showing an overall increase of 13.5% in Group A Offenses.  This includes in a 9.4% increase in Crimes Against Persons, a 12.4% increase in Crimes Against Property, and a 23.5% increase in Crimes Against Society.  Some of the offenses that are driving this increase include assaults, car (and car parts) theft, and destruction of property. What Lakewood is not reporting Within Group A Offenses, reported incidences of Crimes Against Society (mostly including drug and weapon related violations) increased from 2,475 to 3,056 (+23.5%) on average for

Lakewood Spends Taxpayer Money on Keeping Taxpayer Money

In June 2023, the Lakewood Budget and Audit Board voted to recommend keeping future TABOR funds. To do that, they recommended finding a specialist to help find out what would make residents agree to this proposal. That decision seems to be proceeding, although requests for status have not yet been answered. As this CBS News article points out, governments cannot spend money on political campaigns. Although keeping TABOR refunds will be a ballot issue, it is not now. Therefore, there is a loophole to be taken advantage of in order to craft a political message before announcing the ballot measure. Jefferson County is doing the same so-called pre-campaigning for tax refunds. However, in the case of the county, they were very careful not to say that a decision had been made to keep the funds. Jeffco said they were just researching, which will include ways to craft ballot language. Lakewood has already made the decision to keep the TABOR funds by a vote of the Budget and Audit Board. So a ballot issue is pending but is not yet announced. The Board discussed using the specialist to find out what residents would be willing to pay for so that they could use that language. Former Mayor Paul pointed out how successful that strategy was the last time. Jefferson County was in the news for hiring a personal connection of Rep. Brittany Pettersen to research this TABOR issue. Lakewood did not have to suffer this scrutiny because they reached out for three quotes that did not go over the limit which would require a public Request For Proposals. The decision did not come to Council as a separate policy decision that would require public discussion. The expense would have been included in the 2024 budget and approved at that time. There is no word on the current status of this project. No Council Member responded to questions for status or where in the 2024 budget the funds were included. Update 3 February 2024: Council Member Olver responded that the current Budget Board Council Members would be more likely to have answers. Currently that would be Councilors Rebekah Stewart, Jeslin Shahrezaei, Isabel Cruz. Reader Recommended Business: Go With the Flow Plumbing

Scroll to top