Taking care of some serious crime here

[el Gusano]

As many as 14 armed Orange County deputies, including narcotics agents, stormed Strictly Skillz barbershop during business hours on a Saturday in August, handcuffing barbers in front of customers during a busy back-to-school weekend.

It was just one of a series of unprecedented raid-style inspections the Orange County Sheriff's Office recently conducted with a state regulating agency, targeting several predominantly black- and Hispanic-owned barbershops in the Pine Hills area.

In "sweeps" on Aug. 21 and Sept. 17 targeting at least nine shops, deputies arrested 37 people — the majority charged with "barbering without a license," a misdemeanor that state records show only three other people have been jailed in Florida in the past 10 years.

The operations were conducted without warrants, under the authority of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation inspectors, who can enter salons at will. Deputies said they found evidence of illegal activity, including guns, drugs and gambling. However, records show that during the two sweeps, and a smaller one in October, just three people were charged with anything other than a licensing violation.

Criminal Barbering

[mincerray]

This kind of over-regulation is foolish and is contrary to the public interest, IMO. While I believe that regulation and licensure are appropriate means of maintaining quality and safety standards in some cases, I don't think that it applies to barbers.

That being the case, however, the law here is clear, and barbershops that go to the trouble - and bear the expense - to comply should not be put at a disadvantage to unscrupulous businesses that choose to ignore the law simply because they think that it's unfair.

The law should be dropped, but until that happens, it should be applied without favor or prejudice.

[Warkitty]

I wonder if they targeted predominantly black and hispanic shops for a reason other than color and cultural differences.

[mincerray]

Nov 12, 2010 14:28:24 GMT -5 Warkitty said:

I wonder if they targeted predominantly black and hispanic shops for a reason other than color and cultural differences.

It could be that they were taking business from other barber shops that were in full compliance and someone dropped a dime on them.

It's a silly law, but they should have worked to get it changed rather than simply ignoring it.

[el Gusano]

My guess would be that they were not targeted for being black and hispanic, but that more blacks and hispanics are unlicensed.

[Justin Thyme]

It's my guess that illicit activity culturally occurs more often in black and Hispanic hair salons than in Caucasian owned hair salons. White folks do their illicit activity more often at the Elks Lodge.

[Police Moderator]

Does the word "Pretext" ring a bell? The Supremes have decided that a "Pretext" is OK as long as there really was a violation of the law to begin with. I would venture a guess that they really weren't looking for barber shop violations, but bigger fish and struck out. This time.

I mean, really, when fishing... Do you go to a pond where you know there are no fish?

[el Gusano]

I agree with you PM, but arresting them? I think a citation and fine would have sufficed.

[el Gusano]

And acting under the authority of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation?

[duke]

Settlement In Black Barber Racial Profiling Case
Thursday, 11 November 2010
ACLU lawsuit a cause célèbre on race and police misconduct
By Chris Levister –
Two and a half years after a group of Moreno Valley barbers sued, claiming that authorities conducted racially targeted, illegal searches of Black barbershops, Riverside County has agreed to pay $99,000 to settle the case.
County Counsel Pamela Walls said lawyers for the barbers and the county signed an agreement on November 2.
The settlement includes attorney’s fees. Each of the plaintiffs would receive about $8,100.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and Los Angeles law firm of Seyfarth Shaw LLP filed the lawsuit on behalf of Kevin Gordon, Ronald Jones and Raymond Barnes. <snip>

www.blackvoicenews.com/news/45281-settlement-in-black-barber-racial-profiling-case.html

Token compensation.

[el Gusano]

And probably unjustified.

[duke]

State Agency Writes New Policies to End Discrimination and Narrow the Scope of Joint Inspections in Lawsuit Settlement
December 10, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [e-mail]

LOS ANGELES, Calif. – The director of the California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, Kristy Underwood, has written new policies that spell out prohibitions on discrimination in enforcement functions and narrow the board's role in inspections conducted jointly with other agencies, as part of a settlement announced today in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Southern California and Seyfarth Shaw LLP on behalf of several African American barbers in the Riverside area.
The changes in the CBBC's policies stem from a series of raids conducted by board inspectors in conjunction with local police in April 2008 at barbershops owned and heavily patronized by African Americans. The settlement helps ensure that the board will limit its inspections to its mandate of administrative enforcement of health, safety and business codes, and will never use its inspection authority as a pretext to allow law enforcement agencies to conduct warrantless searches for criminal activity under the pretense of a joint inspection. The new policy also prohibits racial profiling in enforcement actions.
"We credit the board with recognizing that these guidelines will help prevent the abuse of its inspection authority by law enforcement while allowing its inspectors to carry out their task of assuring the cleanliness and safety of barbershops and salons," said Peter Bibring, a staff attorney for the ACLU/SC. "This settlement helps restore the barbers' standing in the community, and will prevent other barbershop owners from being targeted for inspections based on race or other discriminatory factors."

www.aclu.org/racial-justice/state-agency-writes-new-policies-end-discrimination-and-narrow-scope-joint-inspection

The violations were significant enough to effect changes in a state agency in addition to the cash payout.

[el Gusano]

There are many "violations" that are significant enough to effect changes in policies and get cash payouts.

Doesn't make them justified.

Like the young lady who was hit by a car while horseplaying with her uncle while waiting on the bus. The bus was still 5 miles away, but "they should have done a better job of teaching her how to behave" and the school district "should have had a policy in place to teach students how to behave at a bus stop".

Someone cries "racism", there will be new policies and new laws to cover someone's butt, it creates bureaucracy, and employs lawyers.

Doesn't make it justified.