Saying that many questions remain unanswered, the ACLU of Rhode Island today issued a five page commentary on the Thursday shooting of Joseph Santos by Providence and RI State Police after a high speed chase, precipitated by the belief that the car had a connection to the stealing of a state police cruiser earlier that morning by an escaped suspect, Donald Morgan. At this point, no connection between the two incidents has been established.
 
The ACLU analysis responds to the information provided by Providence and State Police at separate news conferences at which they expressed full confidence that their officers acted properly at all times.  “In the absence of additional information,” states the ACLU analysis, “it would be wrong to blame the police for what they did, but it is just as inappropriate for police officials to so quickly conclude that there is no fault by police for what happened either.”
 
Among the issues and questions raised by the ACLU’s analysis:
 
* THE HIGH SPEED CHASE. Little attention has been paid to the question of the propriety of the high-speed chase that ultimately led to Santos’ death. The pursuit not only endangered the motoring public, but there are questions as to whether it conformed to the high-speed pursuit policies of the Providence Police Department (PPD) and the R.I. State Police (RISP).
 
* THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE. The PPD claims that the suspect, after being blocked in by police, posed “an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury” by ramming the cars in front and behind in order to get away. But, the ACLU commentary states, “this argument would seem to prove too much. The suspect was trying to get away from the police-initiated chase, not intentionally seeking to cause harm. Under the PPD’s reasoning, deadly force would therefore seem to be justified in any instance of a high-speed pursuit, even where the police chase itself was what led to the danger.”
 
The PPD high-speed policy also requires that in using lethal force, there must be a “reasonable belief” that “the lives of innocent people will not be endangered.” Did the barrage of bullets aimed at the car on the highway meet this standard?


* FACTUAL QUESTIONS ABOUT INITIATING THE HIGH SPEED CHASE. It is crucial to know exactly what the police bulletin, which went out to officers and prompted the initial stop of Santos’ car, said about escapee Donald Morgan. For example, did the bulletin note that the State Police were aware that the gun in the stolen police cruiser had been recovered and that Morgan was still handcuffed? In addition, the broadcast apparently referred to the suspect white pick-up truck as a Ford F-150, but Santos’ car was an F-250. Were police looking for the wrong model of car the whole time? Answers to questions like these are important in fully evaluating the actions by the police in this case.
 
* TRANSPARENCY. The PPD is to be commended for releasing body camera footage of the incident, but it is a cause of concern that this was done only as a matter of discretion, not policy. The PPD is also to be commended for releasing the names of the officers involved in the shooting. However, the decision by RISP to withhold all troopers’ names until an investigation is completed represents a glaring and troubling lack of transparency, and also runs afoul of the Access to Public Records Act.
 
* POLICE BODY CAMERAS. Three Providence officers present for the shooting were equipped with body cameras, but only one of the cameras was activated. Was this at least partly due to the PPD’s own policy, about which the ACLU has previously expressed concerns, governing the activation of the cameras?
 
In calling for answers to these various matters, the ACLU analysis states that “whenever deadly force is used, and particularly in situations where it results in the death of an unarmed civilian, it is crucial that the situation and the circumstances be scrutinized with care.”
 
The analysis concludes by saying: “We fully recognize the difficulties officers face in quick-moving situations like this. It is critical to examine the totality of the circumstances before judging the actions of the police in this case. In the absence of additional information, it would be wrong to blame the police for what they did, but it is just as inappropriate for police officials to so quickly conclude that there is no fault by police for what happened either. . . . We hope that in the coming days, the questions we have raised will be addressed and more detailed explanations about the actions taken by both the city and state police will be provided.”
 
The ACLU’s full analysis is available here:
http://riaclu.org/images/uploads/Review_of_Police_Shooting_of_Joseph_Santos_FINAL.pdf
​

Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, today issued the following statement in response to U.S. District Judge William Smith’s appointment of retired attorney Deming Sherman as a special master to oversee the resolution of the State’s ongoing problems with UHIP:
 
“Given the State’s complete failure to resolve ongoing problems with the UHIP computer system, we are pleased that the Court has appointed a special master to compel the State into compliance.  The State’s repeated and ongoing inability to timely provide needed assistance to hungry families is appalling.  Today the court formally recognized this through the appointment of a special master.
 
“For too long, the State has pointed its finger at the UHIP vendor, Deloitte, but that does not put food on the table of Rhode Island’s poor. We are hopeful that the special master will take action in the near future to provide interim relief to hundreds of needy families while the broader problems of the UHIP fiasco are investigated and resolved.”
 
For more information about this ongoing issue, including facts about the ACLU of RI’s UHIP lawsuit, Gemmell v. Affigne, visit:
http://www.riaclu.org/court-cases/case-details/gemmell-v.-affigne

PROVIDENCE, RI – The ACLU of Rhode Island today sued the RI State Police (RISP) for abusing their power by retaliating against Marissa Lacoste, 25, a Warwick resident who declined to serve as an informant for the agency in an ongoing criminal investigation. Specifically, according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court by ACLU of RI cooperating attorney James W. Musgrave, RISP relied on a dubious state law to bar Lacoste from continuing to work as a cocktail waitress at Twin River Casino in Lincoln when she bowed out of assisting RISP as an informant.
 
In January 2017, Lacoste was leaving work when two RISP detectives approached her car. In response to their demand that she “hand over the weed,” Ms. Lacoste produced a bag with less than one ounce of marijuana. Under RI law, possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is not a crime. Despite Lacoste having committed no criminal offense, the detectives suggested that she was in serious trouble and could go to jail, and demanded that she accompany them to the Lincoln Woods Barracks.  She complied, and while there, they told her that if she didn’t assist them with an ongoing investigation at the Casino, they could cause her to lose her job.
 
In February, after cooperating with RISP for a period of time, Lacoste indicated that she was no longer willing to assist. Weeks later, she was issued a civil summons for her January possession of marijuana, and she further learned that RISP had requested, unsuccessfully, that the Department of Business Regulation revoke her “Service Employee” license, a permit required for those who work in the state’s gaming facilities.
 
Thereafter, Lacoste and a representative of her union met with her employer who informed her that the civil citation she received would not affect her employment.  However, upon reporting to work for her next scheduled shift, Lacoste was stopped by Twin River security and told that she had been permanently excluded from the Casino by order of the State Police, effectively terminating her from her job.  Since that time, RISP has repeatedly denied her requests for an opportunity to be heard regarding her exclusion from the Casino.
 
Today’s lawsuit challenges the statute that RISP relied upon to permanently exclude her from the Casino. Specifically, that law allows RISP to permanently eject or exclude persons from the Casino if they have “allegedly violated any criminal law, or when the . . . casino gaming unit determines that the person’s conduct or reputation is such that his or her presence within the gaming facility may compromise the honesty and integrity casino gaming activities…” The lawsuit argues that this statute is unconstitutionally vague and invites arbitrary enforcement, and denies due process to affected individuals by failing to provide them any opportunity to either be heard before being excluded or to appeal an exclusion decision. The lawsuit also argues that RISP’s actions against Lacoste constituted an “abuse of process” by seeking to revoke her DBR license “for an ulterior and wrongful purpose.”
 
Plaintiff Marissa Lacoste said today: “I’ve always worked hard. I’ve always kept to myself at work and tried to do the right thing. I’ve heard about things like this happening to other people, and I would automatically think ‘that could never happen to me.’ Well it did, I was never prepared to be used and deceived by the authorities put in place to protect me.” 
 
Attorney Musgrave added: “This lawsuit involves the most essential requirement of due process - an opportunity to be heard.   The State Police Gaming Enforcement Unit has deprived my client and untold others of their liberty without any hearing whatsoever. They have barred my client from her place of employment.  They have not given her any chance to appeal.  This conduct is all the more troubling given that it appears to have been in retaliation for her having declined to serve as an informant. The Gaming Act was intended to empower the State Police to keep organized crime out of Twin River, not to prevent a waitress from coming to work because she got a traffic ticket.”
 
Steven Brown, ACLU of RI executive director, said: “The coercive practices exercised by the State Police against Ms. Lacoste are deeply troubling. This raw abuse of police power to punish a person guilty of no crime should offend any fair-minded person. We are hopeful that a court will correct the injustice that has been done to her.”
​ 
The full text of the lawsuit, Lacoste v. RI State Police, is available here:
http://riaclu.org/documents/LacostevTwinRiverComplaintFINAL.pdf