Hennepin County District Court Judge Kathryn Quaintance’s opening remarks in her sentencing of Mohamed Noor, June 7, 2019
“The primary concern of the jurors who heard the testimony in this case when I spoke with them after the verdict was: Will there be changes? Change is needed. Will some of these supervising officers be fired or disciplined? Is what we saw normal for the Minneapolis Police Department and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension? How will this be prevented from happening again? Why are officers more concerned about their personal safety than the safety of the public, especially in such a low-crime neighborhood? Why was there so much discussion of ambushes? Why should a civilian have to be afraid of approaching a squad car? What about the motto on the car door – ‘To serve with compassion’? Why were Noor and Harrity so reactive? What was their training? The jurors were particularly concerned with Officer Harrity’s statement that his priority was making sure he did whatever he had to do to get home safe each night. Jurors remarked that they thought the priority of the police was supposed to be to protect and serve the public.
“No one who heard the testimony in this case or who works in the criminal justice system can question the difficulty of a patrol officer’s job or the dedication of the majority of the police and first responders, but here something went very much awry. The victim’s family and some of the witnesses, including some officers, have expressed concerns. A large amount of taxpayer dollars will go to Australia, but Minneapolis residents await the promised ‘transformation,’ and the questions of the jurors remain unanswered: What has changed? What will change so this does not happen again? How does the Department address officer safety without jeopardizing public safety? The jurors and the people of Minneapolis need and deserve answers.
“As Ms. Sweasy [one of the prosecuting attorneys] noted, the actions of officers are subject to a very high level of scrutiny. They have a lot of power. They are sworn to uphold the law. A high level of scrutiny is appropriate for those with the power to stop, arrest, detain, and the authority to use force, including TASERs and guns.”
