Mediaboss Marketing

A Colorado Springs police officer is the lone remaining defendant in a civil lawsuit alleging excessive force against the son of a current congressional candidate after a federal judge dismissed the city and three other law enforcement officers from the litigation.

Carl Andersen Jr. may proceed to trial with his claim against Officer Vito DelCore, stemming from an April 2019 encounter in the hospital room of Andersen's daughter. Police were trying to retrieve a cell phone from Andersen for fear that evidence would be deleted, but Andersen resisted. Eventually, DelCore tased Andersen, after which the multiple officers present in the room forced Andersen into handcuffs.

Last week, U.S. District Court Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson deemed the officers' actions reasonable under the circumstances, with the exception of DelCore's decision to deploy his taser.

"Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it seems that Officer DelCore encircled plaintiff, taser drawn, in order to initiate a physical altercation," Jackson wrote in a March 29 order. "The totality of the circumstances would allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Officer DelCores actions violated plaintiffs Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force."

David Lane, the attorney for Andersen, said he is "glad that the most culpable defendant who tased Mr. Andersen is still in the case, but disappointed that the aiders and abettors were dismissed."

Andersen is the son of Republican Carl Andersen Sr., who is running to represent the 7th Congressional District. Andersen, who was present during his son's encounter with police, told Colorado Politics in an email that the public should watch the body-worn camera footage and read the court documents to "get a feel for the case as it continues to play out in the legalsystem."

As outlined in the lawsuit, Carl Andersen Jr.'s fianceaccidentally hit Andersen's 19-month-old daughter while backing out of the driveway. The family immediately drove to the hospital in Woodland Park, but the girl needed transport to UCHealth Memorial Central Hospital in Colorado Springs.

While there, Andersen and hisfiance reportedly blocked forensic nurses from examining the child or taking photographs of her injuries. One nurse said in her experience, it raised "major red flags" when families were unwilling to provide information about a child's injuries.

"The overall situation was was very hostile. And the fact that they told me I better leave because tensions are rising tells me if I dont walk out of that room right now, that they are going to physically force me out of that room," the nurse said in her deposition.

The nurses called Colorado Springs police, who in turn requested personnelfrom Teller County, where the accident occurred. Detective Anthony Matarazzo arrived from the Teller County Sheriff's Office and informed the Colorado Springs officers that Andersen's fiance was allegedly sending text messages to others describing the automobile accident.

Matarazzo felt the cell phone contained evidence needed for the investigation, but he reportedly was unable to get the family to cooperate.

Out of concern that someone would delete the text messages if the phone were left in the family's hands, the Colorado Springs officers entered the hospital room. In addition to Matarazzo and DelCore, Officer Todd Eckert and Sgt. Carlos Sandoval were also present.

It was DelCore who spotted the cell phone in Andersen's pocket and attempted to grab it.

"Excuse me, you do not grab anything from my pockets," Andersen responded. DelCore said Andersen was "gonna hit the ground real hard."

Eckert stepped in to talk with Andersen, but at one point DelCore pulled out his taser. Andersen asked, "You're gonna tase me because I'm not gonna give you my (fiance's) cell phone?"

After more discussion, Andersen claimed that his father was talking with the Teller County sheriff. Carl Andersen Sr. was standing nearby and there was a brief period of silence while he spoke on the phone.

When the officers again pushed Carl Andersen Jr. to cooperate, DelCore moved to the back of Andersen and said, "Im going to go behind you because I dont want anybody behind you getting hurt."

Rapidly, DelCore grabbed Andersen's arm and said, "I will tase you" and ordered Andersen out of the room. DelCore then tased him in the back. A struggle ensued and the officers forced Andersen to the ground. DelCore tased him a second time.

Carl Andersen Sr. interjected, saying, "You guys are out of control." DelCore threatened to tase him as well.

Prosecutors eventually dismissed the charges of obstruction and resisting arrest against Carl Andersen Jr.

In August of last year, Jackson dismissed several of the claims Andersen leveledagainst the City of Colorado Springs, includingunlawful search and seizure, excessive force, malicious prosecution and First Amendment retaliation.

Subsequently, the defendants all asked Jackson to enter judgment in their favor in the case. Lawyers for the officers argued that while the Fourth Amendment generally requires a warrant for police to conduct a search, there is an "exigent circumstances exception" if there is a compelling need to avoid the destruction of evidence.

Along with the forensic nurses' account that Andersen and his fiance were refusing to provide information about the child's injuries, "it was reasonable to conclude that the evidence on the cell phone was important evidence and that the family did not want it to be discovered," the officers' motion read.

Jackson granted the officers qualified immunity, which shields government employees from civil liability unless they violate a person's clearly-established legal rights. In principle, qualified immunity seeks to protect officers when they act reasonably. Jackson decided it was reasonable for the defendants to suspect Andersen was obstructing their investigation through his refusal to offer information about the vehicle accident.

The judge further agreed it was reasonable for the officers to suspect someone would delete the text messages before they could obtain a warrant to search it, justifying a seizure under the exigent circumstances exception.

Jackson felt somewhat differently about the officers' use of force against Andersen. For Matarazzo, Eckert and Sandoval, their physical restraint of Andersen came at a time when he "potentially posed a threat to officer safety" and were therefore justified in their response.

But for DelCore, who prompted the physical encounter with Andersen, Jackson did not find that qualified immunity shielded his actions from scrutiny by a jury.

"As the other officers began discussing the situation with plaintiff and requesting cooperation, Officer DelCore threatened to make plaintiff 'hit the ground real hard.' Officer DelCore once again interrupted the civil conversation with a threat of violence by pulling out his taser," Jackson narrated, adding that DelCore also circled behind Andersen just before tasing him.

"Plaintiff barely had time to process, let alone respond to, Officer DelCores ostensible reason for circling behind him when Officer DelCore grabbed and twisted plaintiff's arm, said 'I will tase you right now,' and began shouting at plaintiff to get out of the room," Jackson wrote.

Andersen told Task & Purpose, an outlet oriented to military members and veterans, that the officers appeared to be looking for a fight and had reportedly disregarded his request to obtain a warrant for the cell phone.

"If (Matarazzo) had come in and introduced himself and said: Im a Teller County detective; I need to check your phones; we want to make sure there is no evidence of child abuse; thats a whole different story when you treat someone with respect, Andersen said in April of last year. And that man did not treat anybody, including my fiance, with respect.

A jury trial was initially set to begin on April 25, but Jackson agreed to postpone the proceedings due to DelCore, a staff sergeant in the U.S. Air Force Reserves, being deployed for active duty through the end of April.

The case is Andersen v. City of Colorado Springs et al.

See the rest here:
Judge allows lawsuit to proceed against Colorado Springs officer who tased son of congressional candidate - coloradopolitics.com

Top news and notes from around Northern Virginia and beyond.

5. Masks optional

George Mason University on Tuesday dropped its mask requirement for all campuses and facilities, citing low COVID-19 transmission rates.

4. Rights violated

A federal judge has ruled in favor of a man who claimed Fauquier County Sheriffs deputies violated his Fourth Amendment rights when they arrested and assaulted him.

3. Rain, rain go away

Some showers are likely this morning, then a mostly cloudy day is in store with high temperatures near 66 degrees.Click herefor a detailed forecast by ZIP code.

2. Cats rescued

Firefighters rescued two cats from a burning home in McLean on Monday evening after a fire started when a resident accidentally spilled kerosene while filling a lamp, fire officials said.

1. Centreville tornado

The National Weather Service has confirmed a second tornado touched down,this one in Centreville, during last week's strong storms.

InsideOut

Voting is underway in the 2022 Best of Prince William contest, presented by InsideNoVa.Choose your favorite Prince William County businesses, organizations and people once a day per category through April 30.

See the original post here:
InFive: Masks optional at GMU, deputies violated rights and a cloudy day - Inside NoVA

WILLOW SPRINGS, Ill. Former Chicago Police Superintendent and mayoral candidate Garry McCarthy has accepted the job as interim police chief in southwest suburban Willow Springs.

A press conference was held Thursday morning announcing McCarthys appointment in the town of about 5,000 people near the Cook and DuPage county border.

We welcome Garry McCarthy as the Chief of Police for Willow Springs, Mayor Melissa Neddermeyer said in a statement. We are confident in his leadership to oversee our police operations because he is an experienced and well-trained professional.

Reached by phone Wednesday, McCarthy declined to comment.

Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel hired McCarthy to lead the CPD in 2011, though he was fired in 2015 in the wake of the release of the Laquan McDonald shooting video. McCarthy later mounted an unsuccessful campaign for mayor of Chicago.

While McCarthy was CPD superintendent, the city saw between roughly 400 and 500 murders per year. In 2021, the city saw nearly 800 killings.

Records from the Cook County Medical Examiners Office show that Willow Springs, a village of about 5,000 people, has recorded just one homicide since the start of 2014.

Before he was hired by Emanuel, McCarthy held top posts in the Newark, N.J. and New York City police departments. The U.S. Department of Justice investigated the Newark police after McCarthys departure and found a pattern or practice of unconstitutional stops, searches, arrests, use of excessive force and theft by officers in violation of the First, Fourth and 14thAmendments.

After McCarthy was fired, the DOJ opened an investigation into the CPD. That inquiry, which led to the CPDs ongoing consent decree, found the police department engaged in a pattern or practice of using force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. The department found that CPD officers practices unnecessarily endanger themselves and result in unnecessary and avoidable uses of force.

Read more:
Former CPD Supt. Garry McCarthy officially named interim police chief in Willow Springs - WGN TV Chicago

In the last few years, a flurry of state privacy legislation has bolstered protections for everything from biometric data to rights of deletion. Location data is no exception. The latest statute, New Jerseys Assembly Bill No. 3950, goes into effect on April 18, 2022 and requires employers to provide notice to employees for certain types of geotracking. This law continues the steady advance in protectionsboth in state legislatures and in the courtsfor the privacy of an employees location. Employers in every state should examine their geotracking programs to address the risks created by these developments.

What does New Jerseys new law require?

Assembly Bill No. 3950 requires that employers provide written notice to employees if the employer knowingly makes use of a tracking device in a vehicle used by an employee when that device is designed or intended to be used for the sole purpose of tracking the movement of a vehicle, person, or device.1The laws definition of tracking device supports a narrow reading that excludes devices capable of tracking location but that are not designed or intended to be used solely for that purpose. It is not yet clear, however, how narrowly courts will interpret the laws tracking device definition.

What does a tracking device include?

Reading the law narrowly, a tracking device would exclude many common forms of geotracking. For example, it would not cover GPS tracking apps in company-issued smartphones because of the wide array of other functions performed by a smartphone. Similarly, tracking devices would not include combined devices often used in a fleet of trucks that capture vehicle movement as well as perform audio and video surveillance. The laws definition of tracking device, furthermore, excludes devices used for the purpose of documenting employee expense reimbursement, one of the most common reasons that employers track location.2

On the other hand, a tracking device likely includes telematics devices that track movement, e.g., hard braking, swerving, and speeding, because this information includes movement if not location. Other equipment that might be covered include devices issued by insurance carriers to monitor safe driving and GPS locators that track drivers routes.

What are the penalties for not complying?

New Jerseys law does not provide a private right of action. Rather, the law is enforced by New Jerseys Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development pursuant to New Jerseys Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999. Failure to provide the required written notice can result in a penalty of up to $1,000 for the first violation and up to $2,500 for subsequent violations.3

How is New Jerseys law different from other tracking laws?

Narrow definition of tracking

In passing this statute, New Jersey joins over a dozen other states with location tracking laws. The unique language of New Jerseys law, however, makes its application both narrower and wider than the other laws. As explained above, New Jerseys law defines a tracking device as an electronic or mechanical device which is designed or intended to be used for the sole purpose of tracking the movement of a vehicle, person or device.4This narrow definition stands in contrast to other states laws. For example, Californias tracking law broadly defines an electronic tracking device as any device attached to a vehicle or other movable thing that reveals its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals.5On the other hand, Floridas tracking law defines a tracking device as any device whose primary purpose is to reveal its location or movement by the transmission of electronic signals.6Floridas definition is clearly more expansive than New Jerseys but not as broad as Californias.

Application to both company and personal vehicles

Alternatively, some provisions of New Jerseys tracking law are broader than other states laws. Notably, New Jerseys law requires notice to employees regardless of whether they are driving a company or personal vehicle. State laws typically exempt a company from compliance obligations if the company owns the vehicle being tracked. For example, Illinois and Michigan require the employees consent to track the location of the employees vehicle, but do not require the employees consent if the company owns or leases the vehicle being tracked.7

Requirement of notice but not consent

Furthermore, unlike tracking laws in many states, the New Jerseys law requires only notice, not consent, for location tracking. Wisconsin, for example, requires consent for individual GPS tracking, except in a few circumstances. Notably, Wisconsin does not require employee consent for the employers tracking of a company vehicle.8

Relevant case law regarding tracking

Even in states without legislation on geotracking, recent developments in case law provide greater protection for the privacy of an individuals whereabouts. This trend has been led by the Supreme Court. In Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the warrantless collection for 127 days of cell-site data for mobile devices violated the Fourth Amendment.9The Court reasoned that the continuous real-time tracking of an individuals location violates a legitimate expectation of privacy.10Chief Justice Roberts explained, As with GPS information, the time-stamped [cell-site] data provides an intimate window into a persons life, revealing not only his particular movements, but through them his familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations. These location records hold for many Americans the privacies of life.11

Although Carpenter considered whether the governments warrantless search violated the Fourth Amendment, the case is relevant to private employers because the reasonable expectation of privacy standard is effectively the same for the common law invasion of privacy tort. In fact, a growing number of state courts have followed the Supreme Courts reasoning to hold that real-time continuous location tracking violates an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy and can serve as a basis for privacy torts. For example, in a Nevada district court case,an employer surreptitiously placed a tracking device on an employees car.12The employee brought a claim for the common law privacy tort, intrusion upon seclusion, which survived summary judgment.13Citing to Carpenter, the court found that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his daily movements in the car.14

What steps can employers take given the recent case law?

In light of the growing case law protecting a privacy interest in location, employers can consider giving notice of location tracking even in states where not required by statute. Employers should consider notice in particular when conducting real-time, highly accurate, continuous tracking of an individuals location. This applies to the tracking of any individualnot just employees, but also applicants, independent contractors, interns, and others. By providing a clear and explicit notice about tracking, the employer undermines expectations of privacy in the individuals location.

Second, employers should safeguard location tracking data within the organization and provide access on a need-to-know basis only.

Third, if the employer implements a tracking program, it should consider other laws in the employment context as well as the risks of over-collecting personal information about employees. In particular, employers should try to avoid tracking employees after working hours because the employer risks gathering a wide spectrum of intimate details. Some of these details may reveal the employees membership in a protected category. An employer could learn, for example, that an employee regularly visits a dialysis clinic after work or that an employee goes to the mosque every Friday. If the employee is then terminated or subject to some other adverse employment action, the employee may suspect that the adverse action resulted from discrimination based on the employees disability or religion. This potentially could lead to claims against the company, even if the company had a legitimate reason for the adverse action.

Employer takeaways

Given the growing protections for location tracking, employers should consider the following:

Footnotes

See the original post:
New Jersey Joins the Trend of Increasing Privacy Protections for an Employees Location - JD Supra

The murder of Ethan Rivera on North Graham Street in February spurred calls for more safety measures for CATS employees. (Photo by Ryan Pitkin)

On March 3, nearly three weeks after the murder of Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) bus operator Ethan Rivera led to calls for enhanced safety measures on public transit, the official CATS Twitter account tweeted out three grainy surveillance photos showing federal agents patrolling the Uptown transit center.

As CATS continues to support and provide additional security resources, we have been able to partner with the Department of Homeland Securitys local Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team, the tweet read. The local VIPR team may be present on CATS property at any place and time.

This was news to at least one member of the Transit Services Advisory Committee (TSAC), which advises CATS. She hadnt heard of any such partnership, but the idea of federal agents roaming CATS property brought up a few questions she wouldve liked to see answered before they were deployed.

Whats the message that sends? she asked Queen City Nerve during a recent phone call. What are they empowered to do? What are they not empowered to do? How long will they be here? Are they armed? How are they armed? What are the rules of engagement here?

Those are just a few of the questions that came to mind for the TSAC member, who asked not to be identified for fear of repercussions within the committee.

She also worried how the presence of VIPR agents may lead to over-policing at the transit stations, bringing up concerns about racial profiling, the criminalization of homelessness, immigration enforcement, and other issues.

I know the drivers are concerned for their safety and I know passengers have been concerned for their safety, she told Queen City Nerve. I think the issue really is, when you bring in federal law enforcement, might that have a chilling effect on ridership? We need some transparency.

Others in the community have similar concerns, not only with the VIPR team deployment but with a muddled policing picture that sees three different law enforcement agencies policing certain CATS properties independently from one another.

VIPR teams were formed under the Department of Homeland Securitys Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as a response to the 2004 Madrid train bombings.

Following the Madrid train bombing, TSA developed the VIPR Program to allow TSA law enforcement and security assets to augment federal, state, and local law enforcement and security agencies in the transportation domain, a TSA spokesperson wrote to Queen City Nerve.

The teams operate in mass transit, rail, air and maritime transportation spaces.

For years VIPR seemingly bumbled along, making headlines for incidents that caused tension with local law enforcement agencies.

VIPR began life as a modern version of the Keystone Kops, wrote Trains Magazine reporter Don Phillips in a 2012 op-ed for CNN, referring to the fictional gang of incompetent policemen featured in silent film slapstick comedies in the 1910s.

In 2011, Amtrak police chief John OConnor banned VIPR from all Amtrak facilities after a team inexplicably took over a station in Savannah, Georgia, and searched everyone coming in and out of the facility. No security issue to justify the action was ever presented.

TSA issued an apology for the incident, though OConnor would not accept it, stating that the agency continued to put forward inaccuracies in its own version of events.

Private railroads have repeatedly refused TSAs requests for VIPR teams to be given access to their properties, stating that it is too dangerous for agents who arent trained to operate in railyards.

Though VIPR has mostly stayed out of headlines in more recent years, they do make for an imposing presence that raises questions in cities where they appear. In 2019 alone, we found stories from Portland, Maine; Dallas, Texas; and San Francisco that reported how citizens had become alarmed when federal agents began showing up on public transportation.

Civil rights groups have voiced concerns that VIPR teams are the TSAs way of expanding its power to carry out searches and seizures that would otherwise be unlawful.

This is a classic case of the slippery slope, wrote Jay Stanley, a senior policy analyst with the American Civil Liberties Union in 2011. The Fourth Amendment says that the government cannot carry out a search without probable cause. Over the years, the courts have carved an exception to that plain language for airports, where the government can carry out a limited administrative search solely for the purpose of protecting the safety of air travel (it cannot be a general law enforcement stop).

But the TSA is trying to expand and manipulate that exception for law enforcement purposes and drive a permanent hole in the Fourth Amendment, he continued.

On Feb. 11, the community was shocked when CATS bus operator Ethan Rivera was shot and killed during an apparent road rage incident near the intersection of North Graham and West Trade streets.

The suspect, later identified as 21-year-old Darian Dru Thavychith, allegedly shot Rivera multiple times through his driver-side window without ever leaving his car. Police arrested Thavychith on March 1 and charged him with murder and shooting into occupied property.

Riveras killing sparked outrage among CATS employees, who in the weeks following the shooting held rallies at the scene of the incident and outside of Charlotte City Council meetings. They spoke at public forums, calling for CATS CEO John Lewis resignation and more comprehensive safety measures for drivers.

At a meeting on Feb. 28, CATS bus operator Gia Lockhart told Mayor Vi Lyles and Charlotte City Council members that she and other colleagues had also been assaulted while on the job and no longer felt safe.

Mayor, I love my city and I love my job, but you are allowing this man right here to bring it down, she said, pointing to Lewis, who was sitting nearby.

Three days previously on Feb. 25, Lewis had put out a press release addressing rampant speculation regarding the safety of CATS bus operators and our transit system, stating that CATS had done an audit of its bus fleet and replaced 11 defective radios and would be working with the SMART labor union to create more solutions.

Inquiries to SMART labor reps for this story went unanswered.

On March 3, @CATSRideTransit tweeted out the surveillance photos of VIPR teams deployed at the Uptown transit center.

In an email response to inquiries from Queen City Nerve, a spokesperson with the CATS Office of Safety and Security (OSS) stated that CATS has been working with DHS for several years through this program, though they did not specify how many years.

But in a tweet on March 15, CATS implied that the VIPR team deployment was a response to Ethan Riveras murder.

Responding to a Twitter user who asked what CATS had done since Riveras killing to ensure better safety for its drivers, CATS responded: Since the incident regarding bus operator Ethan Rivera, CMPD has added patrols of the Charlotte Transit Center and bus routes. Department of Homeland Security Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams will now be making random visits and patrol CATS facilities.

Follow-up tweets stated that CATS was also adding additional Allied Universal resources for all bus facilities and routes while working with CMPD to identify and implement de-escalation training for bus operators and CATS frontline employees.

In an email to Queen City Nerve, the CATS OSS Spokesperson wrote, In addition to working with our partners, the CMPD Transit Police Officers assigned to CATS are making checks of bus drivers and walking through buses at various locations throughout the city. Allied Universal guards working at all our parking decks have been instructed to conduct driver and bus checks when they see a bus during their patrol of the decks.

They would not specify the specific roles that their VIPR partners with the DHS were assigned to carry out.

Bus operators have called for increased security at transit stations and on public transit vehicles in the wake of Ethan Riveras murder, but it gets foggy as to whos in charge of that. For example, there are three separate agencies in charge of enforcing the law at the Transit Center.

CATS hires out the private security firm Allied Universal to provide armed security at its facilities and on trains and buses, while CMPD also patrols the station and now federal agents with TSAs VIPR teams will have a presence.

For Robert Dawkins, political director with Action NC, the crowded nature of policing at the transit center is problematic at a time when his organization and others have been working with the city on a Reimagining Policing initiative that includes 8 Cant Wait reforms and other changes in how CMPD operates.

He points out that bringing in outside agencies, be they federal or private, can muddle up those efforts.

Our main thing of course is safety thats whether were talking about police accountability, neighborhood safety or any infrastructure that the city provides, Dawkins said. We already had a problem that the Transit Center is outsourced to private security. As hard as we and other groups work to make sure that public safety, specifically as its run by CMPD, is fair were starting things like the Safe Communities group to make sure that the public is safe and private security does not have to live up to the vision of safety that we push for or city council is pushing for. So weve always had a problem with private security.

A CMPD spokesperson confirmed to Queen City Nerve that neither Allied Universal guards nor DHS agents operate under CMPD directives, though both organizations are required to operate within federal and North Carolina law.

Dawkins said the deployment of VIPR teams brings up new issues, as the Department of Homeland Security also oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), raising concerns about whether agents will have the power to enforce immigration laws at the station.

In Charlotte, city council has always used the cover of, We dont enforce immigration laws, thats not us, were not having anything to do with that, Dawkins said. So who decided to let transit go out and work a deal to have DHS do security out there when now the citys going to be tied into whatever they do to enforce immigration policy?

When asked what authority VIPR has at facilities like the transit center, whether they are tasked with reacting to crimes as they occur or will carry out proactive measures such as searches of suspicious persons, a CATS OSS spokesperson responded over email, Local law enforcement is present to enforce the laws and address any criminal behavior observed.

When asked about what rules of engagement or other directives VIPR will work under in Charlotte, the spokesperson responded, Local law enforcement will enforce the laws and address observed criminal behavior.

When asked whether VIPR will enforce immigration laws at CATS facilities, the spokesperson responded, Local law enforcement are present with the team and they will enforce laws and address any observed criminal behavior.

Dawkins said he has been assured by city officials that VIPR will not enforce immigration laws, as they operate under the TSA and not ICE. However, he and his team, which has a presence at the transit center doing community outreach around issues like vaccines and voter registration, will keep a close eye on it.

The same way that we went after the sheriffs department for 287(g) [a partnership between the Mecklenburg County Sheriffs Office and ICE that was terminated in 2019] we dont want to but we would be prepared to wage a campaign against [CATS] in the city over that if we see that it leads to discrimination against specifically the Latinx community, or if our people that we have down there say that theyre doing citizenship checks, Dawkins said. Thats going to be a major issue for us that we will have to address legally.

Even with three law enforcement agencies holding jurisdiction over CATS facilities such as the transit center, CATS employees continue to say they do not feel safe on the job.

Queen City Nerve spoke with bus operator Gia Lockhart over the phone in March, a couple of weeks after her speech at the Feb. 28 Charlotte City Council meeting. She said that over her eight-year tenure with CATS, shes noticed a deterioration.

The morale on the job has gone down, she said. The delinquency and the loitering, the prostitution, the drugs, everything as far as crime-related has gotten worse at the transit center and on the buses for the drivers and the passengers.

Lockhart said she hadnt seen any DHS agents at the transit center, only Allied Security, but even with them keeping a relatively strong presence at the transit center, she feels unsafe at other stations, including the light rail stations where she has bus stops but has never seen any law enforcement.

Lockhart said fixing the broken bus radios was a step in the right direction, but she hopes the city can work more money into the upcoming Fiscal Year 2023 budget to fund more comprehensive safety measures.

She supports city council member Tariq Bokharis pitch to install bulletproof barriers in each bus between the driver and the riders, though if that measure is explored further by council, she said she would want it to be expanded to include bulletproof windshields and driver-side windows.

Lockhart would also like to see a fixed presence for CMPD or MCSO that includes an office in the transit center, and she wants to bring CATS employees efforts statewide, lobbying state legislators to pass a law making it a hate crime to attack transit drivers.

Provisions added into President Joe Bidens infrastructure law, signed in November, were meant to protect transit workers, but transit unions have recently complained that the Federal Transit Administration is yet to implement or enforce the protections.

Lockhart remains optimistic that, with it being an election year, local officials will be more apt to listen to the demands of her and her colleagues.

At the end of the day, we are literally right there on the front lines, just as well as police and fire and Medic, Lockhart said. We might have a different job description but were right there with the people, and we just dont get the respect that we feel like we deserve, nor the pay.

Become a Nerve Member: Get better connected and become a member of Queen City Nerve to support local journalism for as little as $5 per month. Our community journalism helps inform you through a range of diverse voices.

Original post:
VIPR Team Deployed in Charlotte, Muddling Up CATS Policing Further - qcnerve.com