Testimony in Opposition to SB 44 and HB 495 – State Control of the SLMPD and Expanded Definition of Rioting

Regarding the control of the SLMPD, the crux of the issue is that there is simply no logical explanation for pursuing this type of legislation at this time.

St. Louis saw a 21% drop of homicides, more than 40 cases, in 2023 from 2022. The same was true for other types of reported crime: Shootings were down 24% from 772 in 2022 to 552; felony thefts were down 39%; auto thefts were down 19%; and shootings involving juveniles were down 47%. This positive trend continued in 2024, with a 6% decrease in homicides and 15% reduction in crime overall. And, contrary to what many in this legislative body have feared, St. Louis is not defunding the police. The FY24 police spending package was up 6.6% from FY23, including raises for officers and a $2M increase to its capital equipment allocation to update and expand its vehicle fleet. On the contrary, Kansas City, whose police force is managed by the state, saw a 7% increase in homicides in 2023, in defiance of national trends. And while homicides fell in KC in 2024, nonfatal shootings were the second highest of any year in Kansas City’s history, and violent crime overall remained at consistently high levels. The number of people who were hit by bullets — and survived — rose 12% over the previous year, according to police data.

Missouri voters overwhelmingly voted to return local control of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department to the City of St. Louis only ten years ago. 

Proposition A passed in 2012 with a whopping 64 percent of a statewide vote. Missouri voters believe in local control of police. You will hear others testify today that voters made that choice because St. Louis made certain promises about outcomes if they were to regain local control. However, I pulled the ballot language from 2012, and this is not reflected in the ballot language. Missouri voters support local control unreservedly.  This legislation not only undermines the will of the people, it forgoes putting the issue back in front of voters to hear their voice. This is remarkably undemocratic. 

Empower Missouri asserts that crime is often a symptom of poverty. 

Some people break the law in a desperate attempt to provide for their families. Others live in communities, both urban and rural, where there is an abiding sense of hopelessness. The disinvestment and poverty in these communities is often overwhelming. In the City of St. Louis, over 20% of our residents live below the federal poverty line. Communities ravished by poverty can become breeding grounds for drug use and other illegal activities. We can choose to address these issues through policing alone, or we can seek to address the root cause of the issue, working to ensure that every Missourian has an equal opportunity to thrive. 

City leadership has demonstrated time and time again that they care deeply about decreasing poverty across the City. They’ve committed $5 million towards expanding Cure Violence and other community violence intervention programs. They have launched “Social Workers for St. Louis,” an innovative new program aimed at hiring social workers and public health professionals to intervene in nonviolent situations such as mental-health crises as an alternative to the criminal justice system. The current administration is actively investing in youth programming and job training. They are choosing to focus simultaneously on both public safety and decreasing poverty. Decreases in poverty will mean decreases in crime. Decreases in homelessness will mean decreases in crime. Increases in mental health services and addiction treatment will mean decreases in crime. These efforts need to go hand in hand and be managed by local leaders. This isn’t about public safety– it is about control. The answer to addressing crime is to address poverty.

Regarding the changes to the definition of rioting, the provision would make it easier for peaceful protestors to be branded rioters. 

It is right and just for citizens to stand up and protest injustices in our communities. The First Amendment guarantees our rights to the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech.  Unfortunately, there has been a pattern of tensions between police officers and peaceful protestors escalating and those protests being deemed riots. Protests can be tense situations, and there can be a lot of confusion. It is already extremely easy for someone participating in a peaceful protest to be swept up, arrested, and charged with rioting. 

SB 44 would lower the threshold for rioting charges, which is currently defined as six or more people assembled who agree to violate laws with force or violence and then, while assembled, do violate those laws with force/violence. Under the proposed bill, rioting charges would apply when six or more people are assembled and any criminal laws are violated: there would no longer need to be pre-agreement to violate laws or force/violence necessary for a protester to be charged as a rioter. SB 44 simultaneously increases penalty provisions (from class A misdemeanor to class D felony and class C felony for future charges). The removal of force or violence from the definition could make the mere act of protest and assembly a rioting offense: failure to disperse, for example, could become a felony rioting charge under this proposal. These changes hinder our right to protest, creating overzealous consequences for those who simply seek to make our state and our country a better place for all. To protect the First Amendment rights of Missouri citizens, we urge the committee to reconsider this proposal and remove it from the broader package.