KC police residency rule under attack by Missouri lawmaker who doesn’t live in city
Police officers who work in Kansas City must meet several requirements related to age, education and fitness. Those standards are the norm in most places.
They must also live in the city they serve. That long-standing policy is now under another undue attack by a Missouri lawmaker who, incidentally, doesn’t live in Kansas City.
This effort is bad enough. But Republicans recently combined the no-residency bill with another police measure, supported by Democrats, that could bring needed reforms to policing in the state.
That puts Senate Democrats in an untenable position: A yes vote on reform means waiving residency requirements for police officers in Kansas City.
Residency repeal has been sponsored by state Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer, a Republican representing Buchanan and Platte counties. The measure has support from the Kansas City Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 99.
Brad Lemon, FOP president, didn’t respond to an email inquiry seeking comment. Messages left with Luetkemeyer’s office were not returned.
But the partisan proposal speaks volumes.
In a city that has no local control of its police department — a five-person Board of Police Commissioners appointed by the governor oversees the agency — officers residing outside the city is an issue.
“It’s important for people to police the city they live in,” said state Sen. Greg Razer, a Democrat from Kansas City.
Luetkemeyer is chairman of the Senate’s Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee. A technical maneuver allowed him to pair the residency measure with a police reform bill sponsored by state Sen. Brian Williams, a Democrat from Ferguson.
Williams is the first Black man to serve in the Missouri Senate in two decades.
Williams’ SB 60 called for a number of changes to policing, including a ban on chokeholds and sex with detainees. No-knock warrants would be prohibited under most circumstances, and police departments would have to look into prospective officers’ background before hiring hem.
The use of deadly force on a fleeing suspect would have be prohibited under Williams’ bill unless the suspect posed an imminent threat to himself or others.
Williams introduced the legislation after a series of high-profile officer-involved shootings last year led to state and nationwide protests against police brutality, he said.
“I care about every Black life in Kansas City,” he said. “I care about every Black life in Missouri.”
We support those changes. But because the two bills have been combined, supporters of a residency requirement for Kansas City officers now must also vote against the reforms, too.
Sex with detainees, which surprisingly is not already outlawed in Missouri, would still be OK. And rogue cops fired for disciplinary issues could still be rehired by another department with little to no scrutiny.
A hearing on the Senate floor awaits next week. “It appears this is a way to force Democrats to vote yes on a proposal that we don’t agree with,” Razer said.
Opponents of the residency requirement say Kansas City officers should be able to choose where they want to live. Officers with families should have options on where to send their children to school, and Kansas City Public Schools has yet to achieve full accreditation, some contend.
But the argument is flawed. Kansas City has 18 different school districts within its boundaries. Surely, officers and their families know that. That’s why so many department personnel live north of the river.
Allowing officers to live outside the city would reinforce the perception of the police as an occupying force, not as a community maintaining law and order.
“This legislation does not save a life, does not mentor a child, does not take a deadly weapon out of the hands of a repeat offender,” Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas said.
“This legislation turns a blind eye to the interests of Kansas Citians, driving a wedge between our community and our police. This legislation will damage the safety of our community.”
We have repeatedly supported the residency requirement, which Chief Rick Smith supports, as does the Board of Police Commissioners. There is no reason to change that opinion now.
And it is doubly suspect — and frustrating — that lawmakers would try to shove the change through by attaching it to a police reform measure. The legislature should stop micromanaging Kansas City, and using subterfuge to do it.
If you work as a police officer in Kansas City, you should be required to live there. It’s that simple, and that important.