The city of Minneapolis is being legally mandated to hire more cops after a year of rampant looting, rioting, and violent crime in the wake of George Floyd's death.
In a legal triumph, the National Police Association's amicus brief supporting a lawsuit against Minneapolis City Council and Mayor Jacob Frey for allowing the city's police department to fall below minimum staffing has prevailed. Now the city has been ordered by the court to restore the police force's dwindled numbers.
Minneapolis attorney Erick Kaardal, the NPA's lead council for the amicus brief, gave an in-depth look at the realities of the case in an interview with The Post Millennial. Kaardal discussed the importance of staffing requirements for law enforcement and how a lack of staffing had impacted Minneapolis and its citizens.
Kaardal also explained why Minneapolis City Council must get approval from the public and police federation before taking actions to defund. The lawyer outlined reasons why charters such as the staffing requirement have been put in place by cities like Minneapolis and why they're so crucial to the safety of communities.
The Minneapolis city charter acts as the city's constitution at the municipal level, Kaardal elucidated. Minnesota was the fourth state to permit "home rule" through a constitutional amendment approved in 1896, which allows citizens to create city governments separate from the standards established under state law. A home rule charter "allows a community to establish and maintain a municipal corporation to provide for the common health, safety, and welfare of its people."
According to the city charter, Minneapolis must maintain at least 0.0017 police force employees per resident but had fallen well below that standard by not having the per capita requirement of at least 730 staffers employed. (The baseline is calculated from multiplying 429,606 residents by the city charter percentage minimum of 17 police employees per 10,000 residents.) Kaardal pointed to the city charter as the background as well as the legal principles for the collective bargaining agreement between the city and the Minneapolis Police Federation.
"So when the police federation was negotiating police force levels with the city, part of that agreement was, of course, that the city would follow the charter which is law in Minneapolis," he continued. "Having an adequate number of police officers protects not only the public, but also the police from serious violence."
Community organizer Cathy Spann and seven other Minneapolis residents, co-plaintiffs part of the "Minneapolis 8" had sued Frey and the city council for letting the Minneapolis Police Department fall below minimum staffing requirements in violation of the city charter. City leadership had sought to circumvent the mandates of the city charter by reducing the number of police officers through political budgetary maneuvering, the Minneapolis 8's lawsuit argued.
The NPA's amicus brief agreed, noting that the significance of Article VII, § 7.03(c) is the "lack of politics through a mathematical formula to ensure a minimum police force," a part of the city's police department that excludes civilian employees.
"The sea-change in policies to circumvent the explicit language of the existing City Charter will not cure the ills real or perceived," the NPA's amicus asserted.
The court filing highlighted the city's proven illegalities of attempting to reduce the police force, emphasizing that to decrease the department's staffing below the minimum requirements places greater risk not only to the police force itself but also to the public where fewer numbers of police officers could result in slower response times, resolution to crimes, or prevention.
"When a municipality fails to fully understand the consequences of its actions, it undermines the social contract between the police force and the people it is sworn to serve and protect," the NPA's amicus brief stated. "The City Charter represents a specific guarantee—a social contract—of the governed, through the police department, to protect all people in all communities within that municipality."
On July 1, the Hennepin County District Court ruled in favor of the lawsuit and issued an order requiring the Minneapolis City Council and Frey to "take any and all necessary action" to hire more sworn police officers and ensure that city leadership funds a police force that complies with the city charter by June 2022.
"If the City is not proactive in anticipating what will be required of it in coming years, it will constantly be behind -- constantly underperforming and, as a result, understaffing the police force," the court ruling stated.
Hennepin County Judge Jamie Anderson's order to add officers to the Minneapolis Police Department determined that Frey and city council "failed to perform an official duty clearly imposed by law" in understaffing the police force.
"I think that the legal victory shows that the Hennepin County District Court loves the police and that love is also reflected in the petition being filed the National Police Association," Kaardal said of the court ruling.
Kaardal spotlighted: "The courts will protect the people, but I thought the city council was supposed to do that. I thought the mayor was supposed to do that."
He also called the landmark win at the beginning of July "hopeful that the courts have stepped up to protect the people from the government."
Kaardal underscored how Minneapolis City Council didn't just concede and re-staff the police force. "They went all the way to trial and then they lost."
"So the sad thing is that this got to a judge's desk," Kaardal stated during the interview. "The city council should protect the people, but that's not what the city council wanted. They wanted to fight, fight, fight for defunding the police and getting rid of the police and having less than the legally required police force [...] We had to go to court to get the city, the public officials, to follow the law."
He said that the city leadership's stance had just encouraged more violations of the law and had set an example for the law breakers of the streets. "When the Minneapolis City Council violates the law, it's the wrong kind of example. They should be forcing the law, not violating the law," Kaardal quipped.
Kaardal said that the opposition has any credibility because they weren't following legal procedures with respect to changing the police force. "That's an example for the criminals to follow, not for law-abiding citizens," Kaardal reiterated. "And when the city officials engage in violating the law to reduce the police force, it sends a double message to the bad guys that they can do what they want."
It was in Minneapolis where the movement to "defund the police" gained momentum, sparked by the death of George Floyd who died in police custody. Black Lives Matter activists demanded replacing the police force with more "community-focused" policing. City leadership backed the idea at first.
Minneapolis City Council voted in December to redistribute $8 million from the city's 2021 police budget to other city services as part of an effort to "transform" public safety. Frey called the police budget cuts "irresponsible" and threatened to veto the budget due to an uptick in citywide violence and officers choosing to leave.