Lurking law under scrutiny

The Minneapolis lurking law came under scrutiny Wednesday in a City Council committee that also signaled some willingness to restrict "booting" to immobilize cars.

The debate over whether to abolish lurking with intent to commit a crime ended inconclusively when the Public Safety and Regulatory Services Committee lost its quorum in the sixth hour of its session. The issue will be revived at its June 11 meeting.

Advocates for minority group members and homeless people portrayed the lurking law as applied disproportionately to those populations. They say the law gives police too much power to determine whether someone has criminal intent.

Larry Downing of St. Stephen's homeless shelter said he'd been ticketed for lurking while going out for a candy bar before bed, and wound up with a year's probation. "It's a Jim Crow law that should have been abolished a long time ago," said another speaker, Terence Goudy.

But police and prosecutors portrayed the law as a valuable tool. Council Member Cam Gordon proposed repealing the law, adding criteria to the city's loitering law to give police the power to arrest when they think someone is contemplating burglary, robbery, theft or graffiti.

The city attorney's office said lurking and loitering apply to differing types of conduct. Loitering typically is a more public behavior under which police can cite someone for engaging in prostitution or drug sales, while lurking applies to people behaving more surreptitiously.

Lurking can be applied to a great many more potentially criminal behaviors than loitering, said Dana Banwer, a deputy city attorney. Police are aided in gauging potential criminal intent of a lurker by access to criminal histories, said Assistant Chief Sharon Lubinski.

According to two years of lurking arrest records, blacks are eight times more likely to be cited for lurking than whites, and homeless people are 20 times more likely.

Ban on booting of cars

Meanwhile, the committee forwarded without a recommendation a proposal to ban the booting of cars on private property such as parking lots. That was recommended by regulatory staff on the grounds that regulating the practice is time-consuming and isn't keeping the industry from violating the city's booting restrictions. The city has imposed $24,950 in fines for 52 violations incurred by booters since the council rejected a ban on the practice in 2005 in favor of further regulation.

The committee asked its staff to devise a proposal in time for the council's June 6 meeting that would prohibit booting except in cases where towing cars was impractical. That proposed exception came after testimony from businesses that say their parking lots won't accommodate tow trucks and that booting works.

Staff and some individuals told stories of what they regard as predatory booting practices, such as blocking a car that hadn't yet been booted so the job could be completed after a driver returned.

Speaking for two booting companies, lawyer Tom DeVincke told council members: "I believe this industry is in danger of suffering death by anecdote."

Steve Brandt • 612-673-4438