The Bum’s Rush
Kevin J. Mullen
A new policy [in 1991] that permits police officers to force people sleeping on sidewalks and doorways to move has created the expected controversy, but like everything else, the issue is not new. When large numbers of people – the human flotsam of the 19th century industrial upheaval – took to roaming the streets of American cities, municipal police departments were created. The idea was that the new officers, uniformed and deployed on beats, would, by their very presence, prevent crime and discourage members of what was called “the dangerous class” from congregating.
Things didn’t work out exactly as planned. Not everyone was intimidated by the threat of legal sanctions, so the officers took matters into their own hands. The 19th century policeman, says police historian David Johnson, “found himself in an amorphous situation. His police superiors and the general public armed him with only vague notions of how to perform his jog; then they placed him in an isolated environment where people were predisposed to ignore or challenge his authority. In those circumstances, a patrolman had to establish some basis for maintaining order.”
Officers “rousted” recalcitrant members of the “dangerous class.” If they didn’t go willingly, the officers beat them up. It was apparent from the start that there were serious constitutional problems with such practices. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any provision for police to arrest people or beat them up simply for disobedience to a police order. The way society’s leaders got around the problem was to ignore it.
The “best people” including political, civic, and judicial leaders – even the officers’ own superiors – and most of the press, simply looked the other way and left the problem to be solved by street officers. One result pf the officers’ activity was the creation of the American city of nostalgic remembrance, unsullied by hordes of beggars and bums.
In recent years, society has taken a closer look at police practices. Vagrancy laws have been found to be unconstitutional and the police use of force had come under increasing scrutiny. And again the streets of American cities are beset by a large floating population, this time called more compassionately “the homeless.” There has been much spirited discussion but as yet no one has come up with a way to deal with the legitimate concerns of urban dwellers in a way that completely satisfies the needs of society’s human failures.
As in the 19th century, the street police officer is out there along with an ambiguous mission. Society wants him to fix the problem but won’t tell him how to do it. A directive to the officers of one Bay Area department says they have no authority over the homeless and transients unless there is an actual violation of the law. Yet when merchants complained about loitering in shopping districts, the officers are ordered to sweep the area. “The administration doesn’t want to be accountable for the actions they instruct the rank and file to take,” says one officer.
It will take more than the approval by the Police Commission, the body that is supposed to set policy for the San Francisco Police Department, to solve the problem and more that the destruction of editorial straw men to explain it. The new procedures are merely the first step in the search for a solution that will satisfy all. They are not intended to “solve” the homeless problem but merely to keep people from befouling the principal arteries of the city.
What’s needed is a serious public discussion – the one that wasn’t had in the 19th century – to decide what kind of city its residents want and they are willing to do to get it. The officers on the line, confronted daily with the reality of the crisis, deserve a clear message about what is expected of them.
San Francisco Examiner March 6, 1991