Park Board wary as Spokane city councilwoman eyes icing ICE out of city parks

Spokane City Councilwoman Lili Navarrete has introduced a law to prevent federal agents without arrest warrants within areas of city parks where groups are holding ticketed community events or other areas normally limited to park staff.

“We’re specifically doing this ordinance for federal agents,” Navarrete said Monday. “As we have seen, they have been going places without warrants, which is unlawful under the Constitution.

“Our intention for this ordinance is for communities that are immigrant, if they have events in parks, that they are deemed nonpublic so they can have their birthday parties, cultural events, in peace and not be harassed by federal agents.”

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prevents unreasonable searches and seizures and prevents the warrantless intrusion of law enforcement into a private home, but its protections are more limited on public property.

Navarrete believes that officially designating a part of a park “nonpublic,” even on a temporary basis, could grant the same constitutional protections to a birthday party in the park as to a backyard barbeque.

The ordinance largely mirrors a 2018 local law which allows the council to designate any city property nonpublic; however, the council largely does not have authority over city parks, due to provisions of the City Charter.

Under the ordinance, designating an area of a city park “nonpublic” would be at the discretion of the parks director, who serves at the pleasure of the mayor, or the Park Board, a largely independent legislative body with nearly sole authority to regulate city parks.

But the Park Board appears to oppose the proposal, board President Jennifer Ogden wrote in a May 8 email to the council, noting the pending parks bond that would be on ballots this November coupled with a school bond, collectively marketed as “Together Spokane.”

“The Park Board is focused on improving parks for all of its citizens in its Together Spokane initiative, not on restrictions,” Ogden wrote. “Moreover, Park staff is not comfortable being in a role of enforcement – in fact that is the purview of our Police Department.”

Ogden stressed that her opposition did not indicate tacit approval of the recent change in immigration enforcement policy and practices.

“Let me say that as a human being, and I mentioned this to Councilmember Navarrete, I am appalled at what is happening to our immigrant community,” Ogden wrote. “I believe many of my Park Board members are equally sympathetic to the good intentions Lili is demonstrating and I commend her heart in this.

“However, as Park Board President I must state in the strongest possible terms that this ordinance is not authorized or approved by the Park Board.”

Councilman Michael Cathcart raised a number of legal and logistical concerns Monday when the ordinance was introduced.

While the law specifically calls out federal immigration agents, Cathcart questioned whether it was legal to prevent one type of law enforcement from entering a space without a warrant while not prohibiting other types, including park rangers.

And unlike a private residence, where law enforcement are physically blocked from seeing the inside without a warrant or permission to enter, Cathcart questioned whether “open-field doctrine” would make Navarrete’s ordinance moot in an outdoor park area.

Cathcart warned that if there were major loopholes to the ordinance’s protections, it could give people a false sense of security.

He also questioned the potential logistical challenges of enforcing the law.

“If it’s a paid event, it makes sense to kind of restrict access, but let’s say we have Hoopfest in the park and someone says it’s nonpublic, do you now need a ticket?” he speculated in an interview. “And if not, who is actually in charge of the park?”

Navarrete stressed that the ordinance was an initial draft and encouraged further amendments.