Loitering, panhandling can get you banned from Wilmington
Christina Jedra
This story has been updated to reflect the changed narrative regarding the stabbing death of a woman in Baltimore.
Nineteen-year-old Isiah Barnett was standing at a Wilmington bus stop on a November afternoon when a police officer told him he was under arrest.
The crime, according to police, was his presence in downtown Wilmington.
Twelve days before, Barnett had been banned from the city's business district. A justice of the peace ordered his exile from the 40-square-block area around Market Street on Oct. 25.
It was a condition of his bail for charges of "aggressively" panhandling and resisting arrest, records show. Barnett said he asked a friend for money — panhandling itself is not illegal — and walked away from a police officer.
The teen is one of at least a half-dozen people accused of nonviolent, minor crimes who have been ordered to have no contact with large areas of Wilmington as a condition of their release from jail, The News Journal has learned.
Some defendants awaiting trial for low-level crimes like loitering, aggressive panhandling and disorderly conduct have been banished from the entire city.
"It’s outrageous," said Dan Atkins, executive director of the Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. "Poverty is unpleasant. The solution to it isn’t to protect ourselves from it by pretending that it doesn't exist."
No-contact orders are a standard way to keep accused perpetrators of crimes away from their victims during the course of a criminal case, said retired Wilmington police officer Dan Selekman.
The restrictions, typically requested by police and approved by a justice of the peace, can prohibit a drug dealer from returning to their area of business or a domestic abuser from visiting their alleged victim between bail and sentencing.
"It's usually related to someone who is causing a tremendous amount of issues," he said.
The little-known use of broad bans for minor crimes, which experts said is unusual and ineffective, is supported by Wilmington Police, Mayor Mike Purzycki and at least some downtown business leaders.
They are being issued here as cities nationwide grapple with how to handle complaints of panhandling.
Laws against aggressive begging were passed recently by officials in Erie, Pennsylvania and Ocala, Florida; the mayor of Indianapolis invested $500,000 last month in police and services to curb panhandling; and a Maryland man called for a panhandling crackdown after he claimed his wife was fatally stabbed while trying to give someone money in Baltimore. Police and prosecutors later said the man was responsible for his wife’s death.
Selekman said the purpose of no-contact orders, in general, is to protect the victims.
'"It’s (the court's) responsibility to make sure the victim doesn’t get revictimized," he said.
In Barnett's case, the victim named in court records was "society."
Criminalizing poverty?
While pre-trial geographic restrictions are not new in Delaware, the breadth of the orders issued for minor, poverty-related crimes has raised eyebrows in Wilmington criminal justice circles in recent weeks.
Local and national experts in the rights of the poor said it's unusual and inhumane to ban people — some of whom are likely homeless, addicted to substances or mentally ill — from Wilmington, which is a hub of social services.
"I see no evidence that people can comply with them," said Katherine Beckett, a University of Washington sociology professor.
Beckett wrote a book called "Banished: The New Social Control In Urban America" about the tactics governments use to quietly remove "unwanted" people from public spaces. In her research, she has not seen the type of no-contact orders being used in Wilmington. Similar methods perpetuate incarceration, she said.
"What you get is the person is cycling in and out of jail more than they would otherwise," she said. "It’s not a long-term solution. It's not even a short-term solution."
Assistant Public Defender Meryem Dede represents Barnett and has witnessed three others facing vagrancy-related charges who were ordered not to enter Wilmington city limits at all until the conclusion of their cases.
Those people, who she cannot name due to confidentiality obligations, have faced charges for some combination of aggressive panhandling, resisting arrest, loitering, disorderly conduct and noncompliance with their bond.
She said the no-contact orders cause hardship for clients experiencing homelessness.
"We don’t have shelters that are outside the city but are still close enough that you could make an 8:30 a.m. trial," she said.
Violation of a no-contact order is punishable by up to a year in jail, Dede said.
The News Journal requested records from the city, state and the court system to gain an understanding of how many defendants are banned from Wilmington and municipalities throughout Delaware via pre-trial no-contact orders. It did not receive the information by publication.
Wilmington PD apologizes after advising people to ignore 'aggressive panhandlers'
Tina Showalter, a former Delaware prosecutor, said the no-contact orders she saw in her career with the Department of Justice were specific, such as prohibiting contact with a victim or place of business.
Even in cases involving drug trafficking or a large criminal enterprise, Showalter said she isn't aware of anyone banned from an entire city.
"They were related to the subject of the underlying offense and structured by the court in a defined way," she said.
Department of Justice prosecutors are not involved at Justice of the Peace Court in the setting of bail in low-level offenses like loitering and aggressive panhandling.
When a News Journal reporter met Barnett in Wilmington on Nov. 29, he was not aware that his no-contact order was in place but said such restrictions would not be realistic for him because "I got family up here."
Barnett, who said he lives in Wilmington but whose court records state his residence is in Maryland, could not be reached for further comment.
Not a new practice
Police Chief Robert Tracy said geographic restrictions have been used for decades but the department renewed its interest in the method about a year ago.
Public and private officials with an interest in tempering loitering and panhandling got together in November 2017.
The attendees were Justice of the Peace Court Chief Magistrate Alan Davis; Deputy Attorney General A.J. Roop; a Wilmington police officer; a representative of a local college; the deputy director of Downtown Visions, a nonprofit that promotes business interests; and a representative of Buccini/Pollin Group, Wilmington's largest developer, according to Davis.
The parties talked about complaints from downtown businesses regarding panhandling and loitering, Davis said. No-contact orders were discussed as a tool for combating these issues, said Downtown Visions Deputy Director Michael Maggitti.
The police representative expressed that the department should pursue geographic restrictions more often and would recommend it to the officers, according to Maggitti.
BPG co-founder Rob Buccini could not be reached for comment.
After the meeting, Davis said he relayed the business district's concerns to judges he oversees. He said that he did not make any directive to increase the use of geographic no-contact orders for vagrancy-related offenses.
"No one is under any order to put restrictions in place," he said.
According to Davis, the practice is "thoughtfully done."
"If somebody presents a significant risk that they’re going to re-offend in that area, a geographical restriction is not a bad idea," he said. "Obviously, you want to tailor them as closely as you can."
Tracy couldn't say on Tuesday how many people are currently banned from parts or all of the city or whether the increased awareness of no-contact orders as a tool has resulted in more of them being issued.
He promised to research the question but said the citywide orders are rare.
Wilmington police chief says 'no new trend' in aggressive panhandling
Tracy recalled a sergeant told him that in one six-month period in 2017, about 15 people were banned from downtown Wilmington as a bail condition for various alleged crimes.
As for effectiveness in reducing crime, Tracy said the no-contact orders require "a longer study."
"Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t," he said.
The chief said he hadn't heard of the practice until he was briefed on the November 2017 meeting but has since incorporated the concept into his Compstat meetings. When an officer shares information about a habitual offender, Tracy asks: Have we sought geographic restrictions?
It's not illegal to simply ask for money or hold a sign soliciting donations. Tracy said police are not targeting people who conduct themselves without bothering or harassing others.
"We're not doing it unnecessarily because people are poor," he said. "You can ask for money. No one is stopping that. It’s the behavior surrounding it."
For Tracy, no-contact orders are tools that help assuage the concerns of people who report alarming or menacing behavior by panhandlers.
"People are asking us what we're doing about it, and we’re trying to appeal to all needs of the community," he said. "It’s a delicate balance."
Tracy emphasized that the orders are not unilateral decisions made by cops. They are approved by justices of the peace, he said.
Officers must demonstrate to the justice that the defendant does not live or work in the area and is there "for no other purpose than to commit a crime," according to Tracy.
In Delaware, justices of the peace are not required to be lawyers. Some are not.
Defendants sign off on the order to confirm they understand the conditions, Tracy said. If the restriction would limit their ability to visit their lawyer, doctor or social service provider, they may tell the justice, Tracy said.
Legal questions
Beyond moral and practical concerns, the use of broad no-contact orders may be unconstitutional, according to American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Ryan Tack-Hooper.
"It’s an excessive and unreasonable condition of bail," Tack-Hooper said, noting the issues raises First Amendment issues and other legal questions.
The purpose of bail, as defined by law, is to protect public safety and ensure the defendant shows up to court. Showalter said banning a person from part or all of the city does neither.
"Are you trying to protect the community or are you just trying to kick someone out of that location?" said Showalter, who heads Housing Alliance Delaware, which connects homeless people with shelter.
Eric Tars, senior attorney with the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty in Washington D.C., said he hasn't seen other jurisdictions use geographic no-contact orders like they're being utilized in Wilmington.
The practice, he said, is "ridiculous."
Pushing poor people out of the city may be more politically expedient than investing in solving the root causes of poverty, Tars said, but it's counterproductive.
"If cities expended half the energy on looking for creative solutions than constitutional loopholes to continue enforcing these criminalization approaches, we’d be much further ahead," he said. "But unfortunately that's where they do put all of their energy."
Tars pointed to Philadelphia's Hub of Hope as a model of how a city can tackle issues of homelessness head-on. Since 2012, the walk-in engagement center in Suburban Station has served as a place to get coffee, take a shower, wash laundry and connect with case managers who can help clients find treatment programs and permanent housing.
"The best approach is not to force those people to go somewhere else but give them a better choice," he said. "Nine times out of 10, they will take that better option."
Asked for an interview, Purzycki's office instead offered an emailed statement in which he stood by the use of the no-contact orders.
“These restrictions are court-ordered," he said. "There are times when a record of crime, aggressive behavior or repeated offenses warrant certain restrictions. I trust the judgment of the courts and the Wilmington Police Department to do what is right to protect the public and protect the rights of individuals."
According to Selekman, when it comes to loitering and panhandling, broad geographic no-contact orders don't benefit anyone.
"You can pump them out into the county, but they’re still homeless, and they may have drug or alcohol addiction," he said. "They’re still in need of whatever that service is. That's the inhumane part. That’s the worst thing you could do for someone."
Do you know someone who was charged with a crime and given a no-contact order that bans them from a geographic area in Delaware? Contact Christina Jedra at cjedra@delawareonline.com, (302) 324-2837 or on Twitter @ChristinaJedra.
As temperatures drop, Wilmington homeless shelter 'RVRC' plans shutdown
New Wilmington transit center coming December 2019, officials say