Shut Up or Get Out: PA City Punishes Domestic Violence Victims Who Call the Police

 

Last year in Norristown, Pa., Lakisha Briggs' boyfriend physically assaulted her, and the police arrested him. But in a cruel turn of events, a police officer then told Ms. Briggs, "You are on three strikes. We're gonna have your landlord evict you."

Yes, that's right. The police threatened Ms. Briggs with eviction because she had received their assistance for domestic violence. Under Norristown's "disorderly behavior ordinance," the city penalizes landlords and tenants when the police respond to three instances of "disorderly behavior" within a four-month period. The ordinance specifically includes "domestic disturbances" as disorderly behavior that triggers enforcement of the law.

After her first "strike," Ms. Briggs was terrified of calling the police. She did not want to do anything to risk losing her home. So even when her now ex-boyfriend attacked her with a brick, she did not call. And later, when he stabbed her in the neck, she was still too afraid to reach out. But both times, someone else did call the police. Based on these "strikes," the city pressured her landlord to evict. After a housing court refused to order an eviction, the city said it planned to condemn the property and forcibly remove Ms. Briggs from her home. The ACLU intervened, and the city did not carry out its threats, and even agreed to repeal the ordinance. But just two weeks later, Norristown quietly passed a virtually identical ordinance that imposes fines on landlords unless they evict tenants who obtain police assistance, including for domestic violence.

Today, the ACLU, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the law firm Pepper Hamilton filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Ms. Briggs, challenging the ordinance. These laws violate tenants' First Amendment right to petition their government, which includes the right to contact law enforcement. They also violate the federal Violence Against Women Act, which protects many domestic violence victims from eviction based on the crimes committed against them, and the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, and was enacted 45 years ago this month. The ACLU has long argued that evictions based on domestic violence can discriminate against women, because such evictions are often motivated by gender stereotypes that hold victims responsible for the abuse they experience, and because the vast majority of victims are women.

Norristown is not alone. Cities and towns across the United States have similar laws, sometimes referred to as "nuisance ordinances" or "crime-free ordinances." We represented a domestic violence victim in Illinois, who after years of experiencing abuse, decided to reach out to the police for the first time. The police charged her husband with domestic battery and resisting arrest. Yet only a few days later, the police department sent her landlord a notice, instructing the landlord to evict the victim under the local ordinance based on the arrest. The message was clear: calling the police leads to homelessness.

A recent study of Milwaukee's nuisance ordinance showed that domestic violence was the third most common reason that police issued a nuisance citation, far above drug, property damage, or trespassing offenses. The study also established that enforcement of the ordinance disproportionately targeted African-American neighborhoods. The result? Women of color, like Ms. Briggs, were less able to access police protection.

Effective law enforcement depends on strong relationships between police and members of the community. These ordinances undermine that trust, by punishing victims who call 911 and coercing them to endure escalating violence in silence. Even worse, Norristown reports that domestic violence victims make up 20 percent of its homeless population. In order to reduce domestic violence and homelessness, Norristown should repeal the ordinance, and keep it off the books for good. And other towns that are considering enacting or enforcing these ordinances should learn the same lesson.

Learn more about domestic violence and other civil liberties: Sign up for breaking news alertsfollow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Add a comment (52)
Read the Terms of Use

MAD >:( kat

O.O WTH is with all these laws that SUPPORT rapists, abusers and other criminals?

Anonymous

What the actual fuck...?

Kina Ferreira

This law is ridiculous. I am a victim of domestic violence and a mother of four small children. The government is condemning these women to continue to live in these dangerous situations as well as having their daughters grow up to be abused and their boys be a users. They are not helping fix the problem, they are making it worse.

Anonymous

This is so wrong, so discriminatory, so backward and stupid and maddening. I'm writing letters, I'm getting loud.

Common sense is...

The ugly truth is that the aa culture has bred disrespect, dependence, and lack of discipline. Thus, the high nuisances, crime, poverty.
You can't sue, extort, PC, ignore your way out.
Damn shame.

1wildflower

OMG! This just PISSES me off BIG time!! Just make a DOUBLE victim out of the poor woman. What the hell kind of WORLD do we live in, honestly!?? I sometimes can't believe it's 2013 with these kind of DRACONIAN and brainless LAWS actually being made and ENFORCED! >(

Anonymous

I'm so glad I live in a civilized society, MAINE

Anonymous

It's almost like they realize that maybe she shouldn't be living with someone who attacks her with bricks or stabs her in the neck.

Even if you're a domestic abuse victim, you are still responsible for your own well being, and continuing to live with someone who continually threatens your life is not responsible in the least.

Anonymous

Thank you for taking up this case. This law perpetuates victim-blaming and creates an environment that allows violence against women to continue. It must be challenged.

Anonymous

So wait. Someone breaks into your home, you call the police.(first strike) Someone attacks you, you call the police(second strike) Someone calls again because the person that is supposed to legally stay away won't or assaults you again or some other justifiable reason. (third strike you're out) How is this any different from the 70s when women were afraid to call police because they did nothing about it leaving them open to even more abuse once they left any different?????
According to this law if you are a victim you're at fault. Nice

Pages

Sign Up for Breaking News