Clayton police explain difference between hate crimes and protected speech after August incidents

Chief Smith, Clayton chief of police, told the Community Equity Commission that Missouri law distinguishes a hate crime from a hate incident and explained how the city responds to incidents motivated by bias. “A hate crime is a crime that the state believes to be knowingly motivated because of race, color, religion, national origin, ***, ****** orientation, or disability of the victim or victims,” Chief Smith said. He added that “a hate incident is motivated by bias or hate but does not rise to a criminal offense.”

The chief described why the department sometimes withholds images of hateful graffiti: releasing images can identify a victim’s location, may violate a victim’s wishes and can “amplify the hate.” He said the department received criticism after an August incident in which drone footage captured hateful graffiti on the street; officers had asked the news outlet not to publish items that could identify a victim.

Chief Smith reviewed the department’s recent local history: three incidents in the last 20 years the department categorized as hate crimes, including antisemitic graffiti in 2013, racist and antisemitic graffiti at Glenridge School in May 2025 for which two juveniles were arrested, and the Aug. 5, 2025 case in which three cars were set on fire and antisemitic graffiti was left at a Jewish resident’s home; the Aug. 5 matter remains under investigation. He explained that juvenile proceedings are confidential and that the department cannot disclose juvenile sanctions.

On broader trends, Chief Smith summarized FBI reporting: roughly 55 percent of hate crimes over five years involve race, ethnicity or ancestry; religion accounted for about 20 percent nationally; anti‑Black incidents were the largest single category at 28 percent, and anti‑Jewish incidents rose in 2024. He said the department submits approved reports to the FBI monthly through its records system.

Commissioners asked about the legal line between protected speech and criminal conduct. Chief Smith and Captain Thewitt said the distinction often turns on intimidation, specificity and the ability to carry out a threat. “It’s legal to burn a cross, but it’s not legal to burn a cross if you’re doing it to intimidate a person,” Chief Smith said, noting that burning a cross in someone’s front yard could be criminal intimidation. The chief said officers receive training on First Amendment limits and protest response.

The commission discussed whether the police present on hate‑crime prevention or training to schools; Chief Smith said the department communicates with school resource officers but had not been asked to deliver a schoolwide presentation on the topic. Community members at the meeting urged early education and discussion in schools to reduce bias and bullying.

The chief said the department last updated its internal hate‑crime policy in February 2019; the policy guides evidence collection, victim communication and outreach to targeted communities. He emphasized the department’s aim to protect victims while avoiding amplifying hateful messages.

Less critical details: Chief Smith reviewed a historical murder from 1977 that was later linked to a confessed white supremacist as part of local context for hate‑motivated violence. Commissioners and residents raised interest in educational outreach, school speaker series and earlier interventions for children and juveniles.

The commission did not take formal action on policy changes at this meeting.