Wichita’s gang database has undergone a major retooling, including letting people appeal their inclusion on the list.
by and
Takeaways:
- People now have an easier path to get off the gang list
- The city will pay a special master to regularly audit the list and publicly announce its findings. —
- The ACLU of Kansas and Progeny sued the city because they said the list targeted people of color.
Playing basketball with the wrong set of people or frequenting the wrong gas station could land you on a Wichita Police Department list of gang members.
Community activists say police make snap judgements that label people as gangsters without any criminal record.
That’s about to change.
Judge Eric Melgren, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for Kansas, approved a set of changes Friday to the Wichita Police gang database.
The court-mandated reforms now make it easier to get people off the list or prevent them from ever joining. Wichita police must:
- Contact everyone who is on the gang list, tell them what evidence they have for that assumption and tell them about the appeals process.
- Remove people from the list if they haven’t had run-ins with police in a two-year stretch.
- Follow a standard set of criteria before adding a name to the list.
- Tell parents of children on the gang list what evidence they have of their child’s gang activities. The family then has a chance to correct that behavior before the child is put on it.
- Publicly report gang list data, including number of removals.
- Appoint an ombudsperson to review appeals.
- Work with a special master who regularly audits reasons why people enter the gang list — including randomly selecting 20 newly added people on the list to see why police put them there and what they did to notify the person before adding them.
Police also agreed to remove 3,500 names from the database and pay $500,000 for the plaintiffs’ legal fees.
The judge said he was “pleasantly surprised” that both sides were able to come to an agreement given how far apart they were at the beginning and how contested the case was. The case was a class action lawsuit on behalf of people on the gang list.
Charles Branson, attorney representing Wichita, said during the hearing that the city still disagrees on the law and facts of the case, but called the settlement fair and reasonable.
“There’s a value in settlement,” he said.
Critics saw the list as problematic because Wichitans could be added to it and never told why. There was no way to appeal the decision and no clear system for telling people why they were added to the list.
“How do you ask about something you don’t know about?” asked Heidi Louis, whose husband and brother-in-law were both marked as gang members.
The Beacon reported in 2021 that Desmond Bryant was added to the list because of his family members.
“If you’re not a gang member, why are you hanging around other gang members?” police asked Bryant years ago. The gang members in question were his cousins and brothers.
That reliance on associations, rather than criminal activity, drew criticism as unfair. Several people who spoke on behalf of the plaintiffs said they faced longer sentences and more legal fees because they were on the gang list. They also worried about family members being harassed or targeted by police.
“What’s the point of this settlement,” Caesar Louis asked over a Zoom from Lansing Correctional Facility, “if it does nothing to rectify past wrongs?” (He is Heidi Louis’ brother-in-law.)
The judge said people who had been removed from the list could challenge their convictions. He also let the handful of people on the list who spoke at the hearing know that they had been removed over the last few weeks.
They thought it should have gone further because the database was a black mark on someone’s record. It meant that police had more reason to search their car for minor traffic violations and that they face a minimum of a $50,000 bail if charged with a violent crime or more time in prison if convicted.
Kunyu Ching, with the ACLU of Kansas, said the settlement reflected compromise.
“Nobody gets everything they want,” she said in court. “Nobody ends up 100% happy with a settlement.”
This article was republished here with the permission of: The Beacon