From the Examiner:
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....
I'm on the road, and can't say much in detail about this right now, but I see no way this could be legal. Thanks to Kris Baumann for the pointer.
Ditto Jim's comment. I remember driving down the street in D.C. one summer when some kids, who were standing in a front lawn, threw eggs at my car. Clearly, they were not imported from another area....
Love the interim AG's comment: "I'm not worried about the constitutionality of it." When did Alfred E. Neumann become a public servant?
All over the country we see mayors putting up religious displays, schools implementing policies at variance with Tucker, police depts with blatantly illegal rules on use of force. All of those cases cost the taxpayers . . .
My contention is there's no real way to predict which candidate is going to go all Roy Moore on you in advance.
In other words does merely setting up the police cordon in such a way as to suggest that police approval is necessery to enter violate the constitution? Or would a constitutional violation only occur when they tried to detain someone for failing to answer their questions?
----
I mean surely it isn't unconstitutional for the police to sit next to the entrances to neighborhood and strike up conversation with those entering, even if that conversation consists of questions about why they are here. Presumably, unlike the situation of traffic stops the police can make inquiries before anyone is actually stopped. Thus if the initial quesiton asking is valid could the police use the fact that someone didn't answer when the vast majority of the entrants did as giving the suspicion necessary to take the matter to the next level.
I'm sure this wouldn't fly. I'm just curious as to why it wouldn't.
Whether the issue is gang restraining orders or cordoning off neighborhoods these sort of immediate and very visible crackdowns on crime are the sort of thing that is viscerally appealing to your average citizen who is living with the effects of crime but has neither the time nor inclination to seriously consider the precedential harms or review constitutional law/accounting figures to learn whether it's a good expenditure of money.
This smells to me like the stereotypical sort of problem "The Myth of The Rational Voter" so compellingly exposed. Individuals tend to support the emotionally satisfying easy answer because it's not worth their time to weigh the tough questions.
---------
If you want to stop this particular sort of problem you could make congressional representatives approve any sort of plan like this and their fear of national fall out will make them cautious. More generally, however, the voters tend to be very good at getting what they want.
I expect it's more to deal with the perception as seen through newspapers, rather than what the average Joe in DC sees. Average Joe will be getting through the cordons, after all.
But, yeah, this sounds like something you'd expect from apartheid era South Africa or car-frying France, but without the actual effectiveness.
It's been a long time since Fed Courts, but... Once upon a time, actions by state officers were considered ultra vires if illegal - and thus subject to personal tort liability - because the state cannot undertake unlawful actions. One solution would be to prohibit governmental units from indemnifying officers against Section 1983 liability.
Maybe it wouldn't be wise to get too far out in front on this.
They seem to be staffed by the same species of moron as TSA.
TruePath makes an interesting point. My criminal procedure knowledge is really rusty, but I sincerely hope this is wrong:
This reminds me a bit of Justice Marshall's dissent in U.S. v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1989), and other similar cases.
I think that a lack of interest in talking to the morons on the DC police force who are there as part of an announced program of harassing people entering and exiting a neighborhood is a sign of good judgment, not a constitutionally sufficient basis for further interrogation.
Interesting concept - keep undocumented people out of the country, not just the neighborhood. Oh, yeah, that's what the border patrol is supposed to do.
Best,
Ben
This is of course not implemented by the Fascist Feds, but rather by the DC government, a monopoly of the Democratic party. A Black run government imposing a police state on black citizens in a city with the strictest gun laws around and the highest crime rates around as well.
The disparity in murder rates between DC and the urban VA countries to the south are on the order of a factor of 100-1 as I recall.
No, Maryland.
Legal?
I confess my total and utter ignorance at this -- when confronted with the slate of local candidates, I usually abstain for complete lack of any useful criteria by which to judge them.
I suppose we should have this set up for every residential area, and as John says even the low-income areas can now have their own gated communities! Imagine--every time your in-laws come to visit, they'd have to explain just what their purpose is in coming to your neighborhood again so soon and unannounced. Drug dealers can simply say they're coming in for the birthday party at Joe's place. I see it as a foolproof win-win.
www.wtop.com/?nid=596&sid=1415665
ID needed to enter certain high-crime areas in D.C.
June 4, 2008 - 6:38pm
Mark Segraves, WTOP Radio
[and, what prompted the D.C. Mayor's decision]
www.wtopnews.com/?nid=25&sid=1413074
Seven people killed in string of DC shootings
May 31, 2008 - 3:32pm
[Note: IF you check on the locations of the murders, they generally aren't in the gentrified and upper income neighborhoods. Maybe how you feel about the measure depends on where you live?]
[Of course, if you don't like this approach, maybe the one being used in another city that tries everything possible to prevent individual ownership of firearms will appeal. This is Chicago's new approach.]
ABC news story (sorry I can't get the hypelink to work, but I think you can find it on the internet, if you want to look):
Weis announces new strategies to fight crime, May 16, 2008
By Paul Meincke
[And from www.chicagopublicradio.org]
Chicago Murders Up For 2008
Produced by Tony Arnold on Saturday, May 17, 2008
So far it looks like the people living in places having murder rates like D.C. and Chicago have 3 options: (1) Duck and run, and hope not to become a statistic; (2) Zones and ID checks; or (3) Having police ride around your neighborhood in full Battle Rattle armed with military weapons -- and hoping they aren't jittery. Still, I guess it depends on where you live on how you feel about protecting "Constitutional rights" to the death of others who happen to live in places like dangerous neighborhoods of D.C. and Chicago.
(4) Maybe repeal what is effectively a ban on all workable firearms?
When guns are illegal, only criminals have guns.
Legal?
Oren:
bjr - yes.
Oren, citation please? To a published court opinion?
All: Many of you here were supportive of the use of ID checkpoints at the voting booth in Crawford. Welcome to the next step.
anecdote: Recently, I needed to enter a federal courthouse, because Marion County has removed my most recent voter ID case to the federal courts, but I didn't have ID, because my wallet had been stolen by a pickpocket. The guards were nice about escorting me to the clerk's office and letting me file my paperwork. This doesn't work at the 7th circuit courthouse in Chicago, but it worked this time in Indianapolis.
blatant plug: I have a case going on about voter ID. I'm currently pro se. I'd feel better about the case if I had a lawyer. Anybody?
Yeh - let's just 'go beyond' all those pesky little things like Consitutional rights ....
"The checkpoint will stop vehicles approaching the 1400 block of Montello Avenue NE, a section of the Trinidad neighborhood that has been plagued with homicides and other violence. Police will search cars if they suspect the presence of guns or drugs, and will arrest people who do not cooperate, under a charge of failure to obey a police officer, officials said."
Astounding. I mean, in one sense they can ALWAYS do that, but they need REASONABLE SUSPICION of illegal articles or activity. This whole PR stunt makes it sound liek the plan is 'We'll stop and search anyone we happen to fell like for no reason at all, and arrest them if they dont' comply'.
This, from teh fine city that brought us 'the complete and total ban on firearms' and aclled it 'a reasonable restriction' on the 2nd Amendment.
What will be REALLY funny is if they do this, and find out they have ZERO effect on violence. The people doing the crimes LIVE THERE.
Reminds me of this line: "The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe,"
The case the District is relying on to justify this program, Maxwell v. City of New York, 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.
If you take Edmond seriousy then, yes, this is different from drunk driving checkpoints.
I hope I wouldn't be so cowardly, but perhaps you're right. Even so, the facts of Maxwell provide a nice object lesson to anyone who can't see a potential down side to this sort of program. You should read them.
(Fast background) The city school residents have really bad high school grad rates--about 20%. Those that do get a diploma have a real blast of a prom. One of the things that is done is that fmaily, friends, and those who also were grads go to the area of the prom, watch the students enter, and then tailgate style party in the area, usually without permission of the property owner.
There has been a lot of crime-- shootings, breaking into houses and cars while tailgating.
The school moved the prom to a golf course in a non-diverse area, and the local police responded by setting up chckpoints and only allowing residents and permitted students into the area.
An entire area of town was shut down, but it did stop the breakins and there were not even any shootings.
I know it wasn't constitutional, but it solved a lot of problems.
The other city high school went the other way, and held their prom at a center city location with police sniper teams on the roofs, riot teams, and state police helicopters. I thought their approach looked better on TV but wasn't as neatly done.
This sounds a lot like their earlier house to house sweep for guns. They figure that 90% of the people they encounter will be too poor/uneducated to do anything about it or stand up to them.
And it would be nice if DailyKos, Olberman, etc. would reserve some of their hysteria for this sort of bona fide attack on basic rights rather than getting worked up over whether enemy combatants are getting culturally sensitive meals.
Do you really think that this will make a difference? At best, it will redistribute the killings. It is the culture in DC that needs to change, not the freedom of movement of US citizens.
I would assume that voting (and entering Federal/State buildings for specific purposes) falls under a different set of rules than walking/driving on a public street to engage in private, legal activity in a private location.
If not, then why?
Karrde, voting and courthouses have a very direct connection to assembly and petition aspects of the first amendment, but these are also related to driving. Incidentally my roommate Joell Palmer was one of the two plaintiffs in Edmond. What he did is what any of you can do - jump in your car, drive to the checkpoint, get unconstitutionally searched, get a good lawyer... profit.
I still fail to see how a requirement for ID to enter a government building to do business with a government office is the same as a requirement for ID to traverse a public street to engage in any activity in a private location.
The first case might be defensible (if I must defend it, I must first know if it is the result of legislature, or the result of security/administrative decisions...and if there is pressing security interest, or an interest in reducing the possibility of fraud). The second case is indefensible, as mentioned by many of the opinions represented above.
Or they could do something sane -- like the dozens of places that no longer have murder rates approaching or near D.C. or Chicago's, and start enforcing the damned law in regards to folks who were actually doing bad things, building prisons if necessary.
These checkpoints are decoys to spoil the evidence of this effect. Crime will go down due to Heller striking down the ban, but the officials will say "guns are bad, we need to institute checkpoints like this successful one in DC".
Suzy -- not being sarcastic in my reply -- street hoods aren't exactly intellectual heavy-weights and don't do the type of planning you probably do. After 9/11 security around all military bases in the US was increased, including requiring all vehicles entering to stop, have all occupants identify themselves with photo IDs, either have the vehicle registered on the installation or identify the purpose and destination, and all vehicles are subject to being inspected. There are warning signs posted at all gates advising of this, and turn lanes before the gates. However, at most major military bases, at least weekly someone is busted for trying to bring drugs, concealed weapons or other contraband onto post. While I concede that anyone who used more brain power than you'd expect to find in a rock would see and avoid the check point, it doesn't seem to work that way.
Or, gattsuru, you can individually do something else which is sane and when you live (as I once did) in a city which competed for the title of "Murder Capital of the US", but in the face of all manner of objections to enforcing the law and bringing crime under control -- I moved. I admit that my life isn't quite as exciting now, but, I like that.
No, Bob. What I was pointing out is that "essential rights" (which I believe aren't express in the Constitution, but which I admit have been found in various intrepretations) don't mean a damn to someone who's dead. But, as I noted above, I exercised my right to move, so that's not my problem any more.
Most of the people here seem to care not a whit about the people whose lives are in more danger than the Marines in Iraq and focus on what the police can’t do to protect them.
In the absence of solutions to these problems, does it occur to no one that they and their rationalizations may be the reason that people are being mowed down like wheat?
Nick
"Okay. I'm doing something."
The discussion of the effectiveness of these measures is one thing. The discussion of the discussion of the effectiveness of these measures is another.
If they don't work, it will not be--in the discussion of why they don't work--the fault of the measures' predictable failure.
There will be any number of other, usually irrelevant, reasons hauled out and argued about and, among other things, they will obscure the accountability. See, if it wasn't doomed to fail from the beginning--it was those other things that caused it to fail--then the moron who started it isn't wrong. He gets a raise.
The only government initiative I can think of, ever, which was admitted to have failed because it was a bad idea was the energy crisis in 73-74. James Schlesinger, secretary of practically everything, admitted that we'd actually had the oil, but, to everyone's surprise, hauling in a bunch of braindead 'crats from other agencies was not the way to distribute oil in the USA. It was their fault.
So this will never be a bad idea. Nobody will be blamed officially for it, and it probably will be one click of the ratchet. If it didn't work in DC, with a couple of mods, it will surely work in, say, Philly.
I would suggest you find something more substantial to worry about than being killed at the hands of another human being.
My irony meter didn't just peg, it bloody well broke on that one.
let's put DC in perspective, for the last year i could find the murder/nonnegligent manslaughter rate was 29.1
Washington (the state) was 3.3
Seattle 5.1. National Average 7.
so, while one's chance of being murdered are still very low, DC has a MUCH higher rate than anywhere else.
what i find interesting is the (relatively) low rate of OTHER crimes in DC (as compared to its murder rate).
as a cynical cop who has spent a lot of time looking at crime reporting/intelligence, etc. i have a cynical answer for that.
areas with very high crime (see: DC) tend to have MUCH lower reporting rates for other crimes. the answer is obvious. in podunkville, people report very minor crimes (somebody stole my sneakers from my front yard type stuff) that no self-respecting DC resident would report, and no cop would waste his time with writing.
this holds true even for many more serious part I and II crimes like burglary, etc. people in very high crime areas simply don't even BOTHER to report this stuff to the police cause they know it's a waste of time/they want to do street justice and take care of it themself/they are in the type of area where you simply don't "snitch" (see: stop snitching).
reminds me of marion barry's famous protestation that except for the murders, DC crime rate wasn't that bad.
regardless, for the average DC upper-middle class person, they do have little to fear since the violent crime is mostly confined to the ghetto (sad but true).
I’m not a resident of DC so the chances of my being killed there are zero. However, for certain residents, the chances are much too high especially when you consider that the killings are not spread uniformly throughout the city, but are concentrated in certain neighborhoods.
Second, in response to Oren, I really don’t worry about being killed by another human being since, as I mentioned, I don’t live in the DC ghetto. However, for people who do live there, the fear of violent death is real and approaches the top of the list of things they worry about. If you stand a fair chance of being shot by drive-by shooters as you walk the street you might be distracted, just a little, from contemplating the finer points of constitutional law.
Third, the automatic assumption that these measures are ineffective will remain to be seen. The automatic assumption, based on theories or penumbras and emanations from the learned congregation here leave this casual reader unimpressed. We can be reasonably sure that if there commenters here had their way the experiment will not be tried. We can also be sure that EV would have another column decrying murder in the nation’s capital in the near future.
Do you have some kind of cognitive defect? Where did I say I was anyone’s spokesperson?
Do you believe that fear of violent death is not a concern of people who live in violent neighborhoods?
Is that personal experience talking?
Now, unfortunately, regulating movement is only half the program (though its the most labor-intensive half). The other half is to take a secured area and apply means to catch and apprehend criminals within that particular secured area. The whole reason you secure an area is that the overall problem is too big, and you so apply selective enforcement within more defined and manageable area.
You apply these tactics together because 1) police pressure within an unsecured whole simply pushes the problem down the block, and 2) if you simply put up barriers to movement, without more, the people learn, in time, to circumvent the barrier.