DVD Talk
DC to Seal Off Neighborhoods [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : DC to Seal Off Neighborhoods


Duran
06-05-08, 11:17 AM
WASHINGTON (Map, News) -

D.C. police will seal off entire neighborhoods, set up checkpoints and kick out strangers under a new program that D.C. officials hope will help them rescue the city from its out-of-control violence.

Under an executive order expected to be announced today, police Chief Cathy L. Lanier will have the authority to designate “Neighborhood Safety Zones.” At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.

Lanier has been struggling to reverse D.C.’s spiraling crime rate but has been forced by public outcry to scale back several initiatives including her “All Hands on Deck” weekends and plans for warrantless, door-to-door searches for drugs and guns.

Under today’s proposal, the no-go zones will last up to 10 days, according to internal police documents. Front-line officers are already being signed up for training on running the blue curtains.

Peter Nickles, the city’s interim attorney general, said the quarantine would have “a narrow focus.”

“This is a very targeted program that has been used in other cities,” Nickles told The Examiner. “I’m not worried about the constitutionality of it.”

Others are. Kristopher Baumann, chairman of the D.C. police union and a former lawyer, called the checkpoint proposal “breathtaking.”

Shelley Broderick, president of the D.C.-area American Civil Liberties Union and the dean of the University of the District of Columbia’s law school, said the plan was “cockamamie.”

“I think they tried this in Russia and it failed,” she said. “It’s just our experience in this city that we always end up targeting poor people and people of color, and we treat the kids coming home from choir practice the same as we treat those kids who are selling drugs.”

The proposal has the provisional support of D.C. Councilman Harry “Tommy” Thomas, D-Ward 5, whose ward has become a war zone.

“They’re really going to crack down on what we believe to be a systemic problem with open-air drug markets,” Thomas told The Examiner.

Thomas said, though, that he worried about D.C. “moving towards a police state.”

WTF? Is the acting AG kidding, or is he a total moran? It disturbs me more than a little that this "plan" even reached this stage - didn't someone tell them it sounds like the Germans asking for your papers in 1940?

Red Dog
06-05-08, 11:22 AM
Ah yes, the vague "legitimate reason" test.

VinVega
06-05-08, 11:27 AM
If only they added shoot on sight, this plan would be perfect. :sarcasm:

Red Dog
06-05-08, 11:32 AM
The scarier thing is the chief of the police union calling this plan 'breathtaking,' which I assume means in a positive sense. I guess I shouldn't surprised when those in authority get excited about getting to wield more authority.

Groucho
06-05-08, 11:32 AM
The mods should implement such a scheme in this very forum.

VinVega
06-05-08, 11:33 AM
Yes, I think they mean breathtakingly cool...for them.

Michael T Hudson
06-05-08, 11:34 AM
Next thing you know it is going to be like New Amsterdam on the Wire.

VinVega
06-05-08, 11:34 AM
The mods should implement such a scheme in this very forum.
Why don't you prove to me that you're the real Groucho or I throw you in virtual jail mister.

JasonF
06-05-08, 11:34 AM
Any chance one of the quarrantined neighborhoods will be Georgetown?

Nifty03
06-05-08, 11:35 AM
Escape from D.C.? Seems a wall around all of D.C. wouldn't be a bad idea at all.

Red Dog
06-05-08, 11:37 AM
Any chance one of the quarrantined neighborhoods will be Georgetown?


I'm wondering whether it is the affluent areas that will be zoned off to check the 'undesirables' or the shitholes to keep track of all the 'undesirables.'

Groucho
06-05-08, 11:38 AM
In the latest developments, DC police have reported a large number of individuals flying over the blockades in helicopters, hovering there for 5 minutes, and then shouting "Achievement unlocked!"

Tracer Bullet
06-05-08, 11:39 AM
Next thing you know it is going to be like New Amsterdam on the Wire.

Except that this is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

Duran
06-05-08, 11:47 AM
The scarier thing is the chief of the police union calling this plan 'breathtaking,' which I assume means in a positive sense. I guess I shouldn't surprised when those in authority get excited about getting to wield more authority.

Given the context in the article, it sounds more as though he thinks the idea is stupid, rather than the opposite.

Red Dog
06-05-08, 12:40 PM
Yeah - I didn't see the preceding paragraph.

The Bus
06-05-08, 02:06 PM
In the latest developments, DC police have reported a large number of individuals flying over the blockades in helicopters, hovering there for 5 minutes, and then shouting "Achievement unlocked!"

rotfl

Giles
06-05-08, 02:09 PM
funny, I thought Philadelphia last weekend was alot more unfriendly than DC.

Nick Danger
06-05-08, 03:42 PM
Americans have been incorrectly calling their inner cities "ghettos" for years. This is what a ghetto is really like.

wishbone
06-05-08, 04:05 PM
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9489/200pxescapefromnewyorkwjn6.jpg
If DC is sealed off will Snake Pliskin
have to rescue the president again?

Superboy
06-05-08, 04:19 PM
I'm more concerned about the warrantless door to door searches.

grundle
06-05-08, 06:03 PM
The Republican mayor and Republican city council in Washington D.C. have turned the city into a police state.

I hope the voters will start electing Democrats to those positions so their civil liberties will be restored.

DVD Polizei
06-05-08, 07:09 PM
The scarier thing is the chief of the police union calling this plan 'breathtaking,' which I assume means in a positive sense. I guess I shouldn't surprised when those in authority get excited about getting to wield more authority.

The Republican mayor and Republican city council in Washington D.C. have turned the city into a police state.

I hope the voters will start electing Democrats to those positions so their civil liberties will be restored.


I take it none of you live in these wonderful areas. Second, DC is an extreme city with extreme problems, and extreme measures need to be taken.

Maybe y'all want these violent criminals to be rehabilitated and given ice cream and sing songs around a campfire?

Just to give a brief history, DC cops were begging their officials to come up with better crime strategies to protect them in extremely dangerous zones--many regarded these areas as worse than Iraq. Charles H. Ramsey, the Police Chief, was more interested in appeasing everyone, but yet getting nothing done. Cops were being killed.

So, anyone have any better ideas? I'd love to hear them.

Grundle, how often do you cruise around in the neighborhoods being sectioned-off? Maybe the neighborhood is not so against the idea as you and others would imply they are.

Liver&Onions
06-05-08, 07:11 PM
In the latest developments, DC police have reported a large number of individuals flying over the blockades in helicopters, hovering there for 5 minutes, and then shouting "Achievement unlocked!"

I never venture into this forum, but well played Groucho!

Red Dog
06-05-08, 07:20 PM
I take it none of you live in these wonderful areas. Second, DC is an extreme city with extreme problems, and extreme measures need to be taken.

Maybe y'all want these violent criminals to be rehabilitated and given ice cream and sing songs around a campfire?

Just to give a brief history, DC cops were begging their officials to come up with better crime strategies to protect them in extremely dangerous zones--many regarded these areas as worse than Iraq. Charles H. Ramsey, the Police Chief, was more interested in appeasing everyone, but yet getting nothing done. Cops were being killed.

So, anyone have any better ideas? I'd love to hear them.



You apparently failed to notice that I erred in my statement (as corrected by Duran). The police union chief used 'breathtaking' in a negative sense, as in "how can this plan be constitutional? :confused: " Hats off to him. So take your beef to him. :)

And while I haven't lived in the poor areas of DC, I certainly driven through them on numerous occasions.

crazyronin
06-05-08, 07:36 PM
I take it none of you live in these wonderful areas. Second, DC is an extreme city with extreme problems, and extreme measures need to be taken.

Maybe y'all want these violent criminals to be rehabilitated and given ice cream and sing songs around a campfire?

Just to give a brief history, DC cops were begging their officials to come up with better crime strategies to protect them in extremely dangerous zones--many regarded these areas as worse than Iraq. Charles H. Ramsey, the Police Chief, was more interested in appeasing everyone, but yet getting nothing done. Cops were being killed.

So, anyone have any better ideas? I'd love to hear them.

Grundle, how often do you cruise around in the neighborhoods being sectioned-off? Maybe the neighborhood is not so against the idea as you and others would imply they are.

Maybe they could ban handgun ownership. That would certainly reduce the crime rate.

DVD Polizei
06-05-08, 07:50 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/11/AR2006031101174.html

March 2006

The new head of the D.C. police union does not hesitate to give his assessment of the force: "We are a department in crisis," Kristopher Baumann declared during a recent D.C. Council hearing, "a thousand disturbing stories, careers ruined, officers that deserve better, citizens that deserve better."

Baumann is concerned about the perception of police by citizens. He's been on both sides of the fence regarding enforcement alternatives, and from my understanding he's shocked it's come to this type enforcement. I don't blame him really. But the violence is getting out of control.

The area in question, is the 5th District, which involves the Trinidad area. 22 dead in this district, which is +1 than the entire of last year. 21 total were killed last year and it's only June with 22 dead. Residents have been asking for help. This is the one possible solution.

This isn't happening in the entire city, and we're not seeing Bruce Willis in the form of a general, coming to take it over. :lol:

"NOT YET!" <---in before somebody posts this. :lol:

Shelley Broderick, president of the D.C.-area American Civil Liberties Union and the dean of the University of the District of Columbia’s law school, said the plan was “cockamamie.” “I think they tried this in Russia and it failed,” she said.

What Shelley B. seems to forget in her cokamamie response, which I'm surprised since she's a dean of a law school, is that this has been tried before. And it worked. New York. It's even been used previously in DC. And I think it's been used in LA as well. All this is, is a form of a canvass process, which normally happens when a homicide occurs anyway. In this case, it's being spread out further, and used for several days.

One last thing, pedestrians are not being checked at these points.

It's utterly amazing the kinds of reactions I read and hear when we have a "checkpoint" publicized.

Believe it or not, you still will be able to visit grandma and eat her tasty apple pie.

Dr Mabuse
06-05-08, 07:53 PM
violence and crime?...

they banned those evil pistols and firearms...

how is there violence and crime after that?...

i'm flummoxed...

Red Dog
06-05-08, 07:56 PM
One last thing, pedestrians are not being checked at these points.



How do you know that? That's not what the article indicates, but who knows, maybe the writer is wrong.

At least six officers will man cordons around those zones and demand identification from people coming in and out of them. Anyone who doesn’t live there, work there or have “legitimate reason” to be there will be sent away or face arrest, documents obtained by The Examiner show.

So either they are checking pedestrians, drivers/passengers or both. Either way, it's unconstitutional, and even if neighborhoods want this, that's irrelavent. Hell, if this was constitutional, you'd see this kind of thing in wealthy neighborhoods from coast to coast.

Tuan Jim
06-05-08, 08:42 PM
Saw this in the paper this morning. The post article only mentioned one neighborhood where they're doing this - don't recall the name - they had a triple murder there a week or so ago and DC in general has already had more murders since the beginning of the year than all 2007 (if I read the numbers right).

DVD Polizei
06-05-08, 09:08 PM
How do you know that? That's not what the article indicates, but who knows, maybe the writer is wrong.

Well, the article has left that part out. :)

So either they are checking pedestrians, drivers/passengers or both. Either way, it's unconstitutional, and even if neighborhoods want this, that's irrelavent. Hell, if this was constitutional, you'd see this kind of thing in wealthy neighborhoods from coast to coast.

How are you correlating The Constitution with The Wealthy. Second, how is this unconstitutional. Cops cordon off areas for drunk driving during holiday seasons. For murder scenes. For parades. By request. How is this any different.

How is this unconstitutional?

A wealthy neighborhood doesn't have 1/10 the crime of these areas. Would you prefer sending law enforcement to areas which don't need it, and high crime areas having no law enforcement? This borders on insanity.

And if the neighborhoods request it, it is relevant. If the police weren't responding, we'd have the ACLU yelling at them for a different form of racism. For not responding to poor black people.

If your neighborhood has a town meeting and requests police start pulling over more drivers in the area because there has been a massive increase in drive-by shootings and auto thefts, I'd say it's pretty relevant for a neighborhood to be listened to.

Duran
06-05-08, 09:08 PM
So either they are checking pedestrians, drivers/passengers or both. Either way, it's unconstitutional, and even if neighborhoods want this, that's irrelavent. Hell, if this was constitutional, you'd see this kind of thing in wealthy neighborhoods from coast to coast.

Just vehicles, no pedestrians.

A great comment from Volokh

Heh. As someone in my office said earlier today in response to this story: "Why are you here?" "To establish standing, officer."

:lol:

Red Dog
06-05-08, 09:20 PM
Well, the article has left that part out. :)



How are you correlating The Constitution with The Wealthy. Second, how is this unconstitutional. Cops cordon off areas for drunk driving during holiday seasons. For murder scenes. For parades. By request. How is this any different.

How is this unconstitutional?

A wealthy neighborhood doesn't have 1/10 the crime of these areas. Would you prefer sending law enforcement to areas which don't need it, and high crime areas having no law enforcement? This borders on insanity.

And if the neighborhoods request it, it is relevant. If the police weren't responding, we'd have the ACLU yelling at them for a different form of racism. For not responding to poor black people.

If your neighborhood has a town meeting and requests police start pulling over more drivers in the area because there has been a massive increase in drive-by shootings and auto thefts, I'd say it's pretty relevant for a neighborhood to be listened to.


Checkpoints, save for border patrol and DWI, are unconstitutional. See Delaware v. Prouse. or Indianapolis v. Edmond. Yeah, you can set up a checkpoint to investigate/canvass a crime scene area immediately after a crime, but you can't do it weeks after the fact or in anticipation of more crime. You cannot stop every pedestrian (or every 3rd pedestrian) walking down the sidewalk and ask them 'das papaas please.'

And I'm saying if this was legal, you'd see wealthy areas have their local police departments set up checkpoints to keep out undesirables - if they don't have a legitimate reason (whatever the fuck that means) to be in a neighborhood, then they could be kept out.

Red Dog
06-05-08, 09:32 PM
That volokh link was helpful.

In it was a WP article that says the checkpoints will only stop cars. So that makes Prouse and Edmond even more on point here.

One of the volokh commentors said:
The case the District is relying on to justify this program, Maxwell v. City of New York (this is presumably what Polizei is referring to previously when he said NY tried this), predates Edmond (no checkpoints for generalized crime control) by five years. Maxwell is a Second Circuit case; Edmond was a Supreme Court case. Maxwell relies heavily on Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, which the Supreme Court distinguished/limited in Edmond. Prior to Edmond, the boundaries of Sitz and some other cases weren't so clear. Edmond clarified them somewhat, and in a way that I think excludes the proposed D.C. program. In short, I think the District is grasping at straws.

I'd have to agree.

Layziebones
06-05-08, 09:35 PM
Escape from D.C.? Seems a wall around all of D.C. wouldn't be a bad idea at all.

Only in black neighborhoods!

^Exactly what the police chief was thinking.

Lord Rick
06-05-08, 10:27 PM
http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9489/200pxescapefromnewyorkwjn6.jpg
If DC is sealed off will Snake Pliskin
have to rescue the president again?

Watched this again on AMC last night. Just awesome. The sequel, not so much.

Great closing music, too.

grundle
06-05-08, 10:59 PM
Grundle, how often do you cruise around in the neighborhoods being sectioned-off?

I am cruising around such a neighborhood in the grundlemobile at this very moment. Oops, the top scoop on my triple ice cream cone just fell off, just as I was flipping my Wild Bunch DVD to watch the other side. And I'm having a really hard time shaving while tying my tie.

Oops. A tree just crashed into my vehicle. I think I better get out of here before the other trees drag me from my vehicle and beat me to a pulp. Bye.

DVD Polizei
06-06-08, 12:57 AM
:lol:

The Grundle Ice Cream Truck can go wherever it needs to. :up:

mosquitobite
06-06-08, 07:18 AM
Maybe they could ban handgun ownership. That would certainly reduce the crime rate.

rotfl
:up: well played!

wendersfan
06-06-08, 07:32 AM
I can't believe people are ignoring the out of control violence and focusing on the correspondingly extreme measures taken to prevent it.You find it hard to believe that, on a forum devoted to discussions of policy and politics, people would focus on the extreme actions of policymakers instead of the extreme actions of criminals?

Red Dog
06-06-08, 07:52 AM
You find it hard to believe that, on a forum devoted do discussions of policy and politics, people would focus on the extreme actions of policymakers instead of the extreme actions of criminals?


It reminds me of the veteran/Mexican flag thread from a year or so ago. If you made statements regarding what the rules/laws were on property rights, you were accused of ignoring the illegal immigration problem, which is what precipitated the incident to begin with.

So in an effort to appease everyone, I say shame on you, you violent thug gangs, you all deserve to rot in jail for a long time. Does anyone care to disagree?

wendersfan
06-06-08, 07:56 AM
I say shame on you, you violent thug gangsYes, they indeed are a naughty bunch of rascals.

Sean O'Hara
06-06-08, 09:28 AM
I'm wondering whether it is the affluent areas that will be zoned off to check the 'undesirables' or the shitholes to keep track of all the 'undesirables.'

There's a reason why there's no Metro station in Georgetown.

Red Dog
06-06-08, 09:30 AM
There's a reason why there's no Metro station in Georgetown.

I think that's a myth. I've read up on that and I think geography - proximity to the river had more to do with that.

Now for Tyson's, that statement is accurate. Of course, now they want it since they saw what it did for Pentagon City.

Sean O'Hara
06-06-08, 09:41 AM
I can't believe people are ignoring the out of control violence and focusing on the correspondingly extreme measures taken to prevent it.

The out of control violence is because the DC government forbids law-abiding citizens from owning guns while criminals run around armed. Now they want to fix their mess by violating even more civil rights.

Note this isn't the first crazy proposal this police chief has made. She also wants cops to go door to door intimidating people into letting them search their homes for guns and drugs.

Red Dog
06-06-08, 09:44 AM
Note this isn't the first crazy proposal this police chief has made. She also wants cops to go door to door intimidating people into letting them search their homes for guns and drugs.


Weren't they going to give people "Do Not Consent to Search" signs to hang on their doorknobs? Isn't that sweet - just like hotels do with the "Do Not Disturb" signs. ;)

Red Dog
06-06-08, 10:00 AM
Here is Professor Kerr's take:

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1212701862.shtml

Is the DC Checkpoint Plan Unconstitutional? The Washington Post has a detailed story on DC's plans for a "military style checkpoint" to stop gun violence. Eugene mentioned it briefly below, but I wanted to blog at some length about the legal issues. It turns out that there's a fairly specific Fourth Amendment law of automobile checkpoints, and that we can look to those cases to see how the DC law fits in. My bottom line: I think the DC checkpoint plan is pretty clearly unconstitutional.

Let's start with some background. The Supreme Court has held that the legality of automobile checkpoints are governed by a reasonableness standard under the Fourth Amendment. The cases try to balance the government's interests against the privacy interest and permit the automotive checkpoint when the government has a good reason and the infringement on privacy is minimal. So, for example, the police can use a drunk driving check point, or an immigration checkpoint, so long as they are well designed to minimize the privacy intrusion. See, e.g., Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (drunk driving checkpoint okay); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) (immigration checkpoint okay)

In 1996, in Maxwell v. City of New York, 102 F.3d 664 (2d Cir. 1996), a divided panel of the Second Circuit relied on these precedents to uphold a checkpoint nearly identical to the one that DC is planning. The Second Circuit thought that the checkpoint was reasonable for three reasons:

First, the checkpoints in question served an important public concern in attempting to deter drive-by shootings that were, or were reasonably perceived to have been, connected with widespread drive-up drug purchases. Second, at the time of implementation, the checkpoints were reasonably viewed as an effective mechanism to deter criminal behavior in the barricaded area. Indeed, checkpoints similar to the one here had been effectively used in the past by the New York City Police. Third, the intended level of intrusion to motorists was minimal. No vehicle was to be stopped or its operation questioned unless entry into the cordoned-off area was desired. For those seeking entry, the stop was meant to be brief and was aimed solely at ascertaining the motorists' connection to the neighborhood.

The Post story suggests that DC is relying on the Maxwell case as authority for legality of the checkpoint. And if the law were today what it was in 1996, I would say their legal case is certainly plausible.

The difficulty is that four years after Maxwell, the Supreme Court took a different turn in its cases in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). In Edmond, the City of Indianapolis set up vecicle checkpoints to search for drugs. The city was worried that people were bringing narcotics into the city, and they figured that they could set up reasonable checkpoints to deal with the drug problem much like the earlier checkpoints had dealt with the problems of drunk driving and immigration. The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that the check points were unconstitutional because the government interest was a traditional law enforcement interest rather than something else like public safety.

Here's what the Court said:

"Because the primary purpose of the Indianapolis narcotics checkpoint program is to uncover evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing, the program contravenes the Fourth Amendment.

Securing the border and apprehending drunk drivers are, of course, law enforcement activities, and law enforcement officers employ arrests and criminal prosecutions in pursuit of these goals. If we were to rest the case at this high level of generality, [however], there would be little check on the ability of the authorities to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose. Without drawing the line at roadblocks designed primarily to serve the general interest in crime control, the Fourth Amendment would do little to prevent such intrusions from becoming a routine part of American life.

Petitioners also emphasize the severe and intractable nature of the drug problem as justification for the checkpoint program. Brief for Petitioners 14-17, 31. There is no doubt that traffic in illegal narcotics creates social harms of the first magnitude. The law enforcement problems that the drug trade creates likewise remain daunting and complex, particularly in light of the myriad forms of spin-off crime that it spawns. The same can be said of various other illegal activities, if only to a lesser degree. But the gravity of the threat alone cannot be dispositive of questions concerning what means law enforcement officers may employ to pursue a given purpose. Rather, in determining whether individualized suspicion is required, we must consider the nature of the interests threatened and their connection to the particular law enforcement practices at issue. We are particularly reluctant to recognize exceptions to the general rule of individualized suspicion where governmental authorities primarily pursue their general crime control ends.

Nor can the narcotics-interdiction purpose of the checkpoints be rationalized in terms of a highway safety concern similar to that present in Sitz. The detection and punishment of almost any criminal offense serves broadly the safety of the community, and our streets would no doubt be safer but for the scourge of illegal drugs. Only with respect to a smaller class of offenses, however, is society confronted with the type of immediate, vehicle-bound threat to life and limb that the sobriety checkpoint in Sitz was designed to eliminate.

The primary purpose of the Indianapolis narcotics checkpoints is in the end to advance “the general interest in crime control,” Prouse, 440 U.S., at 659, n. 18. We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes. We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized and ever-present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.

Of course, there are circumstances that may justify a law enforcement checkpoint where the primary purpose would otherwise, but for some emergency, relate to ordinary crime control. For example, as the Court of Appeals noted, the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack or to catch a dangerous criminal who is likely to flee by way of a particular route. The exigencies created by these scenarios are far removed from the circumstances under which authorities might simply stop cars as a matter of course to see if there just happens to be a felon leaving the jurisdiction. While we do not limit the purposes that may justify a checkpoint program to any rigid set of categories, we decline to approve a program whose primary purpose is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control."

Finally, there's one more precedent we need to consider: Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004).. In Lidster, the police set up a vehicle checkpoint looking for a hit-and-run driver. In an effort to get leads about the hit-and-run driver, the police set up a checkpoint exactly one week after the accident at the scene of the crime; they then asked the drivers whether they had any information on the accident, on the theory that people may have been driving a specific route every week and may have seen the crime the week earlier. The Supreme Court held that this was not covered by Edmond because the purpose of the stop was to collect information about a crime, not to target the drivers: "The checkpoint stop here differs significantly from that in Edmond. The stop's primary law enforcement purpose was not to determine whether a vehicle's occupants were committing a crime, but to ask vehicle occupants, as members of the public, for their help in providing information about a crime in all likelihood committed by others. The police expected the information elicited to help them apprehend, not the vehicle's occupants, but other individuals."

So the question is, is the DC checkpoint "ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control"? I think the answer is yes. Granted, the case is somewhat harder than Edmond. The DC program has a tighter nexus to public safety than the drug checkpoint in Edmond, as it attempts to stop that violence directly rather than through the more meandering path of making drugs harder to buy. At the same time, a police officer who is trying to deter shootings is very much engaged in crime control. It's extremely important crime control, but it's still crime control. Further, the purpose of the stop is not to seek information about a known crime, as in Lidster: the purpose is to look for crime among the drivers, the prohibited purpose in Edmond.

DC's best argument is that their checkpoint falls within the "emergency" exception suggested in Edmond: "there are circumstances that may justify a law enforcement checkpoint where the primary purpose would otherwise, but for some emergency, relate to ordinary crime control." The neighborhoods in DC are facing an emergency of violence, the argument would run. But the examples of emergencies in the Edmond opinion (quoted above) don't give this argument much hope. What's notable about these examples of permitted emergencies is that they are very specific: they involve roadblocks for a specific criminal or a specific attack, rather than roadblocks as a matter of course. It sounds like the checkpoints in DC are "matter of course" roadblocks; they are focused on dangerous neighborhoods, but they are general roadblocks not responding to any one offense. As a result, I don't think the checkpoints are constitutional.


An excellent thorough analysis. :thumbsup:

Duran
06-06-08, 12:02 PM
Weren't they going to give people "Do Not Consent to Search" signs to hang on their doorknobs? Isn't that sweet - just like hotels do with the "Do Not Disturb" signs. ;)

The fact that these ideas see the light of day outside a brainstorming meeting disturbs me. Who thinks that's okay?

DVD Polizei
06-06-08, 07:50 PM
Here is Professor Kerr's take:

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1212701862.shtml


Further, the purpose of the stop is not to seek information about a known crime, as in Lidster: the purpose is to look for crime among the drivers, the prohibited purpose in Edmond.

An excellent thorough analysis. :thumbsup:

So, drivers are now a protected class? Who knew. I could have sworn the "C" in ACLU, did not stand for Car. :lol:

The analytical professor, forgets these checkpoints are in fact, about public safety. They are requested by members of the community, and are not driven exclusively by Law Enforcement, which was the point of Edmond in the first place.

Oooops. He overlooked that point entirely. Didn't he.

Jesus, can we get some real legal debate here. Something with legal teeth?

Red Dog
06-06-08, 07:57 PM
I think I'll take the professor's legal reasoning over 'yours.' :lol:

Where the hell did he mention anything about protected classes? :hscratch: This is not an equal protection issue.

Everything the police do could be classified as 'public safety.' The checkpoints struck down in the aforementioned cases were also for 'public safety.' What's your point? Again, the fact that a community asks the police to do something for them doesn't act as a shield for constitutionality. So he overlooked a point that isn't a point.

Just because someone is in a car doesn't mean they sacrifice their civil liberties. Or were you not aware of that?

RoyalTea
06-06-08, 08:03 PM
They are requested by members of the communityso?

DVD Polizei
06-06-08, 08:04 PM
I was kidding about CARS being a protected class. :sad:

If the professor is right, the zones will be ruled unconstitutional. If I'm right, they will proceed as planned. Who's your legal daddy? We'll find out. :D

so?

It's a legal thing.

Everything the police do could be classified as 'public safety.' The checkpoints struck down in the aforementioned cases were also for 'public safety.' What's your point? Again, the fact that a community asks the police to do something for them doesn't act as a shield for constitutionality. So he overlooked a point that isn't a point.


Now you're just throwing out generalizations. Let's just say, we disagree. In time, we'll find out just who is right on this one. Mmmmkay? :)

RoyalTea
06-06-08, 08:13 PM
It's a legal thing.what were the results of the referendum that lead to this?

Red Dog
06-06-08, 08:16 PM
It's always nice to be able to tell a cop when he's wrong about the law. ;) You can only do it over the internet unfortunately. I would never try it in person because of the power disparity.

Red Dog
06-06-08, 08:20 PM
what were the results of the referendum that lead to this?


That's a good question. Was it a few people? Was their councilman - I didn't think they had executive power. Whatever it was, it's simply government action no matter which way you slice it.

Tracer Bullet
06-06-08, 08:33 PM
I think that's a myth. I've read up on that and I think geography - proximity to the river had more to do with that.

This is correct.

DVD Polizei
06-06-08, 08:48 PM
Another few points I'd like to make because of misperceptions.

1) Cars will be able to LEAVE the NSZ without a checkpoint (well, as long as you're not firing a weapon out your car window and shooting at police--have to add these pesky exceptions).

2) Cars ENTERING the NSZ, if denied access, can still park their car on the outside of the NSZ, and be permitted to enter the NSZ.

3) Cars are subject to search, but only under probable cause.

4) If you don't want to give your information, you can park your car, and enter an NSZ as a pedestrian.

This NSZ procedure is strictly because of vehicles being used in the commission of serious and violent crimes, and of course, the request and acceptance of the involved community to perform such a procedure. The people driving the cars, are not necessarily the focus here. The focus, is the use of vehicles while committing serious crimes.

Finally, all this talk of cars and crime gave me a theme of movies to watch tonight. I'm watching 60 Seconds, The Fast And The Furious, Bullet, and FATF: Tokyo Drift. :D

crazyronin
06-06-08, 09:15 PM
Finally, all this talk of cars and crime gave me a theme of movies to watch tonight. I'm watching 60 Seconds, The Fast And The Furious, Bullet, and FATF: Tokyo Drift. :D

Let me save you some time with the last one...

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/8542/barbiecardriftgi5.gif

DVD Polizei
06-06-08, 09:37 PM
:lol: :up:

Tuan Jim
06-08-08, 09:05 PM
I think that's a myth. I've read up on that and I think geography - proximity to the river had more to do with that.

Now for Tyson's, that statement is accurate. Of course, now they want it since they saw what it did for Pentagon City.

Georgetown wants it now because they've got traffic up to their necks and they can only keep so many streets closed at one time - to prevent the proles from infiltrating. Of course at this stage in the game it's a lot more complicated to add a new station - and much more expensive - and of course who's going to end up paying for it?

mosquitobite
06-09-08, 10:56 AM
Those who give up a little bit of liberty for the sake of security...

orangecrush
06-09-08, 11:58 AM
Those who give up a little bit of liberty for the sake of security...
They already gave up handguns. Why not a little more?

Giles
06-09-08, 12:07 PM
I think that's a myth. I've read up on that and I think geography - proximity to the river had more to do with that.

Now for Tyson's, that statement is accurate. Of course, now they want it since they saw what it did for Pentagon City.

funny, since they took out the theatres there at Pentagon City Mall (which had a great SDDS 8-Channel Digital sound system) I haven't been there since. Word is now that Potomac Yards wants a stop.

crazyronin
06-13-08, 06:28 PM
Update:

DC cops abandon checkpoints after night of violence
06/13/2008 @ 11:05 am
Filed by Nick Juliano

Police in Washington, DC, have abandoned checkpoints it established in an unsafe neighborhood after a night of violence saw eight shootings elsewhere in the city. The checkpoints were criticized by civil libertarians as "police state" tactics more appropriate for Baghdad or Soviet-era East Berlin than the nation's capital.
Advertisement

Local authorities offered few specifics as to why they decided on Thursday to stop checking identification for every person driving into a neighborhood in Northeast DC, but they claimed the mission was a success because there were no shootings in the neighborhood, known as Trinidad, during the six days the checkpoints were in place. On Wednesday night, eight people, including an 11-year-old girl, were shot elsewhere in the city; none died.

The Washington Post reports that some local officials criticized the heavy-handed police tactics and noted that such authoritarian approaches would be unlikely to decrease crime overall.

The program, in which all drivers must justify their purpose for being in a targeted area, has been criticized by civil rights groups, D.C. council members and residents who said police are overstepping their power.

"As crime occurs elsewhere in this city, they're going to have to go back to community policing," said council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), who is holding a hearing Monday on the initiative.

"Checkpoints aren't going to stop crime," Mendelson said.

Under community policing strategies, officers work with residents to find solutions. Lanier did not seek community input before launching the checkpoint, a source of complaint from some residents. But other residents praised the effort.

The checkpoint plan followed other civil liberties-unfriendly proposals from DC police struggling to quell violent crime in the city. Previous proposals included a venture that would have had police going door-to-door in rough neighborhoods asking residents to "voluntarily" submit to warrantless searches of their homes. That plan was temporarily abandoned after citizen complaints, but police are moving forward with a plan to centrally network and continuously monitor thousands of closed-circuit video cameras throughout the city.

Police decided to shut down the checkpoint just a day after they said they would extend them through the weekend. Local blog DCist notes the confusion probably wasn't the best way to inspire confidence in the police.

"Way to make everyone feel like this thing has been well thought out, guys," the blog quips.

link (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/DC_cops_abandon_checkpoints_after_night_0613.html)

DVD Polizei
06-13-08, 09:44 PM
This is just fine with me. Those who say police are Nazis and all the added WWII Paraphernalia, can please remember this case and cite it when police stopped conducting such a procedure and moved their resources elsewhere, apparently where needed.

Since there was an increase of violence in another part of DC, it only made sense to dedicate resources to the new area. Just think what we'd see on this thread and in the media about the Nazi Police who refused to move resources to where the violence really was.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0