St. Louis’ Chief Prosecutor Files Lawsuit Against Her City

AMANPOUR:

We turn now to police violence in st Louis, Missouri. The city was at the epicenter of the black lives matter movement in the summer of 2014 after the fatal shooting of the 18 year old Michael Brown in Ferguson. Now Kim Gardner, the city’s first African American chief prosecutor is investigating police violence there. She’s filed a lawsuit against the police union and the city of st Louis itself in accusing them of quote, racially motivated conspiracy to deny the civil rights of racial minorities. The police union and the city both deny the accusations and Kim Gardner sat down with our Michelle Martin to explain why she’s doing the lawsuit and why it’s so important.

MICHEL MARTIN:
So can attorney Kim Gardner, thank you so much for speaking with us today. Thank you for having me because you decided to run as the city’s top prosecutor and I know for example, that you called for more accountability for police officers who have been violent, who have used excessive force. You’ve also called for not prosecuting a lower level drug offenses. You just talk a little bit more about specifically what did you, what did you determine as your platform and running for this job?

KIM GARDNER:
Well, my platform is to look at crime as a public health crisis. We have to be about harm reduction and public safety. And that’s a prosecutor who is a minister of justice to pursue justice is not merely convictions. And in line with that is also preventing crime and preventing individuals go further into the criminal justice system. And that’s my platform. So to address the root causes of fuels of hopelessness, which fuels the criminal justice system. So we have to address the economic disparities in the city because that drives individuals to the criminal justice system. That’s why we look at alternatives to give people opportunities to get themselves out the crime continuum that causes mass incarceration, which we know has caused devastation and destruction to all of our communities. That’s why I have looked at holding police accountable because how we build trust with individuals in the criminal justice system or holding people accountable is you have to build trust with the community.

MICHEL MARTIN:
So when did the um, resistance to your, your policies start?

KIM GARDNER:
Day one when I walked into the office.

MICHEL MARTIN:
How did you see that? How was it expressed to you?

KIM GARDNER:
Before taking office, it was a suppressed by conversations with the police union who basically said that police will no longer do their job because they’re afraid of the message of um, how we have to address accountability for our law enforcement officers. It was expressed by individuals resistance to one disqualify my office from certain cases because of certain individuals who did not like the way. Um, we were implementing reforms in the office. It was looking at how we brought in very Institute a national organization to address the pretrial and bail crisis in our communities. Um, how we review cases, how we, um, looked at our data and how we were really looking at who we charge, what we charge, um, how I implemented the policy of a hundred grams of lists, not bringing low-level marijuana cases and prosecuting those cases to, that causes more mass incarceration so we can focus on violent and serious crimes. We try more cases than any other jurisdiction. That was a big impediment that police started putting out there that somehow we’re letting drug dealers and violent individuals pray on the community and this is this misinformation that when I took office that was put out there that somehow I don’t know how to do my job.

MICHEL MARTIN:
Did anyone say this to you directly? For example? I mean, how did this communication with other folks in law enforcement take place? I mean, did anybody from the police union, did you meet with them? I mean, did you meet with the command officers and say, this is the new approach that we’re taking and this is why it’s in our best interest. Did, did anybody say to you directly that we don’t agree with you and we’re not going to do this? Or was it communicated in other ways?

KIM GARDNER:
It was communicating by the police union representatives that the police felt like they cannot trust me as the new prosecutor because they felt like that I’m not going to go after individuals that prey on the community. I’m just going after police. And that was surely after the case. It was a, um, when I took office, you know, we inherited the Stockley case and we had pursued that case to trial. And at that point there was many different, um, officers who failed to turn over certain, um, information, who started to not want to bring cases, making it difficult to do their jobs because they felt per the police union that somehow I was going to prosecute police more than prosecute individuals that commit crimes.

MICHEL MARTIN:
Could you, could you just provide a screenplay of what the Stockley case is for people who aren’t familiar with it?

KIM GARDNER:
Jason Stockley was a police officer that shot and killed Anthony Lamar Smith and we had a bench route, which, um, ultimately kicked off more protests about the way it was handled because, um, Anthony Lara SIF Smith was killed by a gun that the only DNA on the gun was officer Jason Stokley’s DNA.

MICHEL MARTIN:
Would it be accurate to say you kind of feel that you walked into a hostile environment? Would that be, would that be accurate?

KIM GARDNER:
I feel then I walked into a hostile environment, but I felt like because of the reform efforts and the message of holding everyone accountable under the laws of the state of Missouri, I felt like somehow it was an attack on them against us and us as the people versus some law enforcement officers, not all. And I believe that message was, um, basically, uh, talked about and put out there by the police union, particularly Jeff Roorda.

MICHEL MARTIN:
Well, who’s the head of the police union there? His technical title is so business manager. Let’s talk about the lawsuit. Um, it’s highly unusual. In fact, some consider it to be, some think it may be the first time an elected official has used the statute, which was designed to address the KU Klux Klan. Uh, and in some cases the cooperation between law enforcement and the KU Klux Klan, or the infiltration of the client into some law enforcement entities. You’ve sued by name, the head of the police union and a number of other individuals to tell us about it. How did you decide that this was the course of action you needed to take?

KIM GARDNER:
It’s not about me. It’s about the people is about stopping the reforms that the people elected me as the prosecutor of the city of st Louis to do in the city of st Louis. This is the powerful few that have coordinated and colluded together to stop these efforts. And this is about the perpetuation of a system that we know has caused harm to the community. And because this is an unusual type of situation in st Louis, we had to take the unusual measures of standing up and doing what’s right. We have to make individuals uncomfortable that they can not usurp the power of the will of the people. And that’s why this suit is important.

MICHEL MARTIN:
But why a lawsuit? I mean some might argue that this is a matter of political skill and that you’re a failure to get buy in these various entities.

KIM GARDNER:
You would know that their entrenched interests, you’d know that they have a certain point of view and that that’s what you were elected as a political figure to do is to create a political solution to these issues. So why a lawsuit? This is about equal justice under the laws and the city of st Louis. This is about the people and their power and their voice being silenced by the powerful few and the best course of action is to seek the laws of the federal courts. That’s how we have history of equality in this country, is to seek that equality through the courts. Everyone deserves equality under the laws of this law, this country as well as the state of Missouri, and it’s about equality is no one in the city of st Louis that will not tell you about the racial divisiveness in this city.

KIM GARDNER:
Even the ethical society of police talked about that this is suit is needed and the claims in there or substantiated and there are the black police union that was formed for racial equality on the police department. This is the, not about everyone in st Louis. This is about the powerful few that have Kola colluded together to toward the afters of the people and we have to do that. You’ve called it a racist conspiracy to thwart the reforms that you have been elected to advance. Jeff Roy to whom you’ve mentioned the business manager for the st Louis police officer’s association. He’s also named, he’s a named party in your suit. Um, denies that this is about racism. I’m sure this is not news to you. He said, we’re not criticizing her because she’s the first. We’re criticizing her because she’s the worst, the worst prosecutor in the United States.

KIM GARDNER:
And then he goes on to say that, uh, the walls are closing in on this corrupt official and she’s doing what every corrupt official does. She’s pushing back on those walls. He calls this and I’m going, uh, editing a little bit here. He says, this is the last act of a desperate woman who simply wants to silence her critics. And your response to that is, my response to is Jeff Roy, I should not have a platform to spew his racial divisiveness. He is a disgrace. Fire police, police officer. There was fire from the police department where he came from, from making a false police report. So why would we give this individual a platform to even talk about anything of credibility? Because he has none. This is the individual light that they can see your suit. So he does have the right to respond. Right? Well that’s because he represents the, the some men and women in the police department. That’s why he’s naming this suit. But he’s allowed unchecked to say these racially divisive rhetoric that even when former and other black prosecutors, women came down to support myself, he told us to go back to where we come from. That rhetoric is not allowed. That’s in line with this kind of rhetoric of racial divisiveness that fuels the racial divide in this city. And the, the, the city itself is named in the lawsuit. Is that, is that correct? Why is that?

MICHEL MARTIN:
Yes. Why, why is that?

KIM GARDNER:
The city has, with the small few work to impede legal representation from our office in terms of, uh, a special investigation that we all know about that has, that is more about the people and, and stopping, um, legal representation that everyone has a right to legal representation inside my office as well as the, uh, elected prosecutor doing their job day to day. So that is why the city’s involved. Um, there is, um, instances where the city is a part of, um, bringing certain claims to start off a special prosecutor investigation, which, um, we have some questions about, but those are facts of the case that are at issue. And that’s for the lawsuit to decide.

MICHEL MARTIN:
Well, the end of course, you know that the, the, the mayor of spokesperson for the mayor on, on the mayor’s behalf, uh, quote unquote vehemently denied what it considers to be meritless allegations levied against it and expects to be fully vindicated. Um, so I’m sure you’re aware of that response as well. But I guess the question I have is that you are elected by the same people who elected these officials. And I, I’m just, I’m just wondering how it is.

KIM GARDNER:
I like do the mayors elected, but the, the city counselor is a point is appointed by the mayor and the public safety director is appointed by the mayor. So it’s two people elected the mayor and myself, but the rest of the people are appointed by the mayor. So they’re in the mayor’s cabinet. But let’s go back. So what she said, it was really a frivolous that was the first statement was frivolous by her sports person, but it was characterized is married to lists. But I would say that I don’t believe the ethical society of police department who supports this lawsuit, who says that there are racial divisiveness and animus within the police department and their ranks, that it’s not frivolous. And so I think that the mayor needs to understand and, and knows about the racial divide in the city of st Louis.

MICHEL MARTIN:
You are a part of a, a group of reform minded prosecutors who’ve been elected in recent years. But I was wondering why it is that, um, it was a group of African American women prosecutors who came to support you, but there are men who share your views about the best way to approach crime. There are African American men, there are biracial men, there are white men who share these views. And I was just curious like why were they not among the people who came to support you, uh, as this lawsuit was filed and as you’ve been under attack? I mean it doesn’t, in a way you’re kind of reinforcing the idea that it’s about identity and not about the ideas?

KIM GARDNER:
It’s really the sisterhood that we have for being the first African American female prosecutors. Um, in our respective jurisdictions. It’s a sisterhood because we are under attack different from even our other colleagues that are in the reform movies. We’re not saying that they’re not under attack, but the attacks are different to African American female prosecutors. These women understand the challenges of the intersection of race and gender. When you are an African American female prosecutor, your discretion of how you look at doing your job is challenged at every cost and the way you’re characterized where you’re characterized and where you are, your, your face is put on. Um, different characters is different than our male counterparts. And that is why they came to support me because they know the attacks. Attacks are real. I mean, we are demonize. We, um, just today I got a letter, you know, people ask me what, why am I doing this? Cause it’s not about me, but I got a letter which basically, and I’ll read this, we are going to get you out of there. One of the other and the other. You are the, you’re a lowlife, crooked lion in B, stop wasting our taxpayers. You, you can’t do your job right? Get out in nothing but a black slit plus no brains, just air and so was today. You just got that today. Just got that today. So these are why they came down because they get the hate mail like this. They get the threats on their family, they get their children disseminated to the public so people know where their children are going to school. They get the death threats, they get the stops by police and there’s, they’re, they’re stopped for long periods of time. They, it is this vitriol that no one wants to talk about when it comes to African American female prosecutors. And it is different from our male counterparts. We’re not saying that they don’t get a tax, but it’s not the same way.

MICHEL MARTIN:
All the things you’re talking about, um, have such deep historical roots, right? Is it, does, do you, do you feel that even if you prevail in this lawsuit that that actually achieves the cultural change that you’re looking for?

KIM GARDNER:
The best disinfectant is light and we have to show light on the racial injustice that’s been perpetuated by the small few. And this is what the suit is about. This is about the people the people want change. We started this conversation around this country post Ferguson. We are the ones that started the conversation. A reforming a broken criminal justice system, showing the racial divide, showing the inequities of how, when you have individuals that perpetuate, um, division in the communities. What that does, we are the, the ground zero for the reform efforts. But it’s, it’s sad that these reform efforts are hampered in this region. And what’s more disturbing is there is silence that has taken place in the city of st Louis. There’s silence in the legal community that knows the injustice that tells me that keep fighting is silence inside those police departments that want change but are afraid of the powerful few who continue to silence and to impede and to, to discount.

KIM GARDNER:
But this is what they’re doing using me as an example, that if you go against the status quo, this is a modern day night ride and we all know what that is. Well, we know our history. If that’s the case though, if you’re saying that they don’t really represent the majority of the department, if they don’t really represent kind of the center of gravity of this police department, why don’t they vote these people out of office if that’s the case. But we are always talking about a small food, just like we talk about a small few of these calls and a crime in our city and we characterize our whole city by a small few, just like a small few calls and our problems in the police department. But those small few can affect the whole bunch if we do not continue to eradicate the injustice and the racial divisiveness that we, we know and the ethical side of the police have agreed this taking place in the st Louis metropolitan police department.

KIM GARDNER:
If we don’t continue to have the good people stand up and fight, we’re going to have the small few to impede progress. The stagnation of people wanting to come to st Louis to want to live, work and play in the community that I know is great, that has great things, great people, great entities here. We have great opportunities but we’re going to fail if we do not become more inclusive. And we don’t say enough is enough. We don’t. We see the injustice but we have to stand up and if I have to stand up for the people I will and the people asked me to fight, they didn’t ask me to stand still and keep things the same and that’s why this suit is important.

MICHEL MARTIN:
Attorney gardener, thank you so much for talking with us.

KIM GARDNER:
Thank you for having me. I appreciate you.