DC Police Plan Checkpoints

[MJS]

I thought this was pretty interesting and will no doubt ruffle some feathers in that area.

WASHINGTON - Stung by an outbreak of violence, including eight killings last weekend alone, police are taking the unusual step of establishing vehicle checkpoints in a crime-ridden neighborhood in the nation's capital.
Starting Saturday night, officers will check drivers' ID and turn away any who don't have a "legitimate purpose" in the area — a plan that has drawn swift criticism from civil liberties groups.
"The Constitution and the Bill of Rights should not become the next victim of the street violence," said Johnny Barnes, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union for the National Capital Area. "This plan will treat every resident of that area the way criminals are treated."

Link

 

[Empty Hands]

Given DC's anti-freedom measures like the handgun ban, I am not surprised. I am also not surprised that it will be poor minorities, as usual, who are affected by this policy. I would also not be surprised if it did nothing to stop crime.

 

[MJS]

"The Constitution and the Bill of Rights should not become the next victim of the street violence," said Johnny Barnes, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union for the National Capital Area. "This plan will treat every resident of that area the way criminals are treated."


This is something that caught my eye, but I don't necessarily agree. If you live there or have a legit reason, then there doesnt seem to be any worry. If you're a good citizen, live in the area, and are not in that area to cause problems, there shouldnt be any worry. But those that are coming to buy drugs, or engage in other criminal activity, then the checkpoint is working. In the article it was said that there were concerns of having to prove that you live in your own neighborhood. That shouldnt really be an issue, because many cops or I should say the observant ones, will know who belongs in an area and who doesnt. I say this with confidence, because I see it on a daily basis when I'm at work. The cops know who the trouble makers are, and can usually pick up on things that are out of place.

Hey, if it reduces crime in that area in the article, the residents should be happy.

 

[Big Don]

It's a quagmire! We need an EXIT STRATEGY!

 

[RandomPhantom700]

So, rather then actually investigate crime, the police choose to respond with a broad, sweeping measure that abrogates any responsibility on their own parts and tramples all over residents' civil liberties. EH hit the nail on the head: this measure will do nothing more then give cops the thumbs-up to engage in profiling based on race and economic status, and harrass those that they "know who the trouble makers are"...meaning anyone that they just don't like. Any measure so broad that enables such police discretion should raise eyebrows.

I really can't wait to see the first lawsuit that arises from this.

 

[elder999]

Starting Saturday night, officers will check drivers' ID and turn away any who don't have a "legitimate purpose" in the area — a plan that has drawn swift criticism from civil liberties groups.

Define "legitimate purpose?"

"I'm going to visit my cousin officer."

"who's your cousin?"

"Willie Horton"

"Step out of the car, please."

or:

"I'm going to services officer."

"Where do you go to church?"

"It's not a church; it's Temple #7, Nation of Islam."

"Step out of the car please."

You get the idea.....

 

[Empty Hands]

If you live there or have a legit reason, then there doesnt seem to be any worry.

I'm an American citizen, I don't need a "legitimate reason" to be in any public space. Does anyone remember when this line of thinking used to be something us Americans used to criticize the USSR for? Now Pogo's quote applies, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

If you're a good citizen, live in the area, and are not in that area to cause problems, there shouldnt be any worry.

Yeah, define "good citizen." Like THAT isn't open to abuse. We are talking about poor black people in DC, the police are not going to see these people as "good citizens" from the start.

 

[Errant108]

Have any of you actually looked at what the police are doing?

Like the fact that the residents want the police there? That the police are doing this with the residents knowledge and blessing?

 

[arnisador]

I have mixed feelings. I'm glad they're taking action, but...I don't want to have to carry identification papers for travel within my own country.

 

[MJS]

So, rather then actually investigate crime, the police choose to respond with a broad, sweeping measure that abrogates any responsibility on their own parts and tramples all over residents' civil liberties. EH hit the nail on the head: this measure will do nothing more then give cops the thumbs-up to engage in profiling based on race and economic status, and harrass those that they "know who the trouble makers are"...meaning anyone that they just don't like. Any measure so broad that enables such police discretion should raise eyebrows.

I really can't wait to see the first lawsuit that arises from this.

Well, IMO, each of us can control our own actions. That being said, if you don't want to draw attention to yourself, don't do things that usually do draw attention.

Mike

 

[MJS]

I'm an American citizen, I don't need a "legitimate reason" to be in any public space. Does anyone remember when this line of thinking used to be something us Americans used to criticize the USSR for? Now Pogo's quote applies, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

So, let me ask you this. If you were riding thru a part of town that is known for drugs, you don't know anyone that lives in that area, and that part of town is not part of your normal travel route, why would you be there? You're right, you dont need a legit reason to be anywhere, although in the situation I mention above, I think it'd be a good idea to have one.

Yeah, define "good citizen." Like THAT isn't open to abuse. We are talking about poor black people in DC, the police are not going to see these people as "good citizens" from the start.

Hmm...please tell me you're not saying that poor black people are not good citizens. Just because someone may not be as fortunate as someone else, doesnt mean that they're bad. Is everyone that lives in a project bad? Well, many times everyone is stereotyped, so many may say yes, they're all bad. Then again, there many be many who live there because thats all they can afford, but they are good people.

Sadly this will turn into a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. If the cops dont take action on crime, the public asks why not. If they do actually go out, do busts, stings, etc., people cry foul. Looks like a no win situation.

 

[Empty Hands]

If you were riding thru a part of town that is known for drugs, you don't know anyone that lives in that area, and that part of town is not part of your normal travel route, why would you be there?

Maybe it's the fastest route to the freeway. Maybe I like the danger of driving through the ghetto. Maybe I'm curious what a drug dealer looks like. Who knows. It's not the business of the police as long as I am not breaking the law.

Hmm...please tell me you're not saying that poor black people are not good citizens.

No, that's pretty much the exact opposite of what I am saying. What I am saying is that poor black people will already be looked upon by the cops as not being "good citizens." Most of the law breakers arrested in DC fit this description after all, and the police tend to transfer the actions of that minority to everyone else that looks like them and lives near them. I have no such illusions, most of the poor black citizens living around the poor black criminals are their victims, not their accomplices.

 

[MJS]

Maybe it's the fastest route to the freeway. Maybe I like the danger of driving through the ghetto. Maybe I'm curious what a drug dealer looks like. Who knows. It's not the business of the police as long as I am not breaking the law.

And how do the cops know what the person is doing there unless they ask? Could the person they stop be the upper middle class guy thats hooked on coke, and he's driving thru the area looking for the dealer or the dealers house? Taken from the article:

Still, Thomas said, he is taking a wait-and-see approach, noting that many of the recent shootings involved people who drove into the area to buy drugs or settle scores with residents. The checkpoints should make it more difficult for outsiders to come in, he said.

This is one of those things that we can "what if" all day long. But if there is proof that the people coming thru the neighborhood are the ones causing the problem, as shown in that clip above....

Let me ask you this. Its obvious that you feel that this checkpoint plan is a bad idea. Fine, I accept that, I'm cool with that. Thats your opinion and you're entitled to it. So, if you were the one that was tasked with making a decision on how to solve the problem in this area, how would you do it? What steps would you take to bring some peace back to this neighborhood?

No, that's pretty much the exact opposite of what I am saying. What I am saying is that poor black people will already be looked upon by the cops as not being "good citizens." Most of the law breakers arrested in DC fit this description after all, and the police tend to transfer the actions of that minority to everyone else that looks like them and lives near them. I have no such illusions, most of the poor black citizens living around the poor black criminals are their victims, not their accomplices.

Ok.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Have any of you actually looked at what the police are doing?

Like the fact that the residents want the police there? That the police are doing this with the residents knowledge and blessing?

You have a good point; these measures are being taken in response to some serious criminal activity, and I'm sure that, in the short run, the residents who have been living in fear, will feel safer with the added security. That is, until the first resident finds out that their nephew got turned away because the police just weren't convinced that his intentions were honorable.

But let me ask you this contrast. Compare the current setup, where cops turn away someone at their own discretion because their reason for entering the neighborhood isn't convincing enough to a setup where the checkpoints check for guns, drugs, or other objective indicators of criminal intent. Can you not see how the latter setup is less infringing on civil rights and less prone to racial profiling then what's currently being put into place?

 

[MJS]

You have a good point; these measures are being taken in response to some serious criminal activity, and I'm sure that, in the short run, the residents who have been living in fear, will feel safer with the added security. That is, until the first resident finds out that their nephew got turned away because the police just weren't convinced that his intentions were honorable.

But let me ask you this contrast. Compare the current setup, where cops turn away someone at their own discretion because their reason for entering the neighborhood isn't convincing enough to a setup where the checkpoints check for guns, drugs, or other objective indicators of criminal intent. Can you not see how the latter setup is less infringing on civil rights and less prone to racial profiling then what's currently being put into place?

Good points. Question for you. In your opinion, do you really think that any option that the cops pick is going to be less profiling than another? For example...person A drives thru the neighborhood and is stopped. Cops ask if he lives there. He does, so he gets by...he doesnt, so he gets turned away.

Same scenario. Person A drives thru. Cops stop and tell him to get out of the car so they can check for drugs and guns.

Maybe I'm just not fully understanding what you're saying, but IMO, I'd think that any option is going to raise issues with certain groups.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Good points. Question for you. In your opinion, do you really think that any option that the cops pick is going to be less profiling than another? For example...person A drives thru the neighborhood and is stopped. Cops ask if he lives there. He does, so he gets by...he doesnt, so he gets turned away.

Same scenario. Person A drives thru. Cops stop and tell him to get out of the car so they can check for drugs and guns.

Maybe I'm just not fully understanding what you're saying, but IMO, I'd think that any option is going to raise issues with certain groups.

Inevitably they will, of course. My point is that where the cops are turning people away due to evidence of guns/drugs/etc., there's less discretion and thus less likelihood of unfair profiling then where the deciding factor is whether the police think his reason for coming isn't good enough.

So to answer your question, I do think there's a difference between the two types of checks with respects to profiling. Bear in mind, even police officers who are just making a good faith effort to do their jobs can still engage in profiling where too much is left to their discretion. Imagine the following arguments if a checkpoint decision is challenged in court: "I found evidence of guns/drug paraphenelia/known gang symbols, so I turned them away" versus "He said he was visiting his brother, and I just didn't believe him."

 

[Empty Hands]

And how do the cops know what the person is doing there unless they ask?

They don't need to know unless there is actual evidence of criminal intent. Of course, I know that the police are allowed to ask anyone anything they want at any time. However, unless they have at least a reasonable suspicion, they cannot detain or otherwise compel that person to do anything. They can tell the cops "none of your business" and be on their way, at least in theory.

So, if you were the one that was tasked with making a decision on how to solve the problem in this area, how would you do it?

There are many steps that can be taken that won't curtail freedom. One of many options would be to organize these neighborhoods with watch or community policing programs in collaboration with the actual police. These programs have been shown to be highly effective.

 

[MJS]

Inevitably they will, of course. My point is that where the cops are turning people away due to evidence of guns/drugs/etc., there's less discretion and thus less likelihood of unfair profiling then where the deciding factor is whether the police think his reason for coming isn't good enough.

So to answer your question, I do think there's a difference between the two types of checks with respects to profiling. Bear in mind, even police officers who are just making a good faith effort to do their jobs can still engage in profiling where too much is left to their discretion. Imagine the following arguments if a checkpoint decision is challenged in court: "I found evidence of guns/drug paraphenelia/known gang symbols, so I turned them away" versus "He said he was visiting his brother, and I just didn't believe him."

Ok, thank you for the clarification. And while I'm on a roll here..lol...another question for you. Now, going on your 2 scenarios with the stops, I do feel that it would be productive if they were looking for the things you mention...ie: drugs, guns, etc. Do you feel that they would not be looking for these things anyways? I mean, if you're going to pull someone over, you're going to be looking into the car upon walking up to it. The initial stop is to confirm whether or not the person lives there and while asking, looking for other stuff.

 

[MJS]

They don't need to know unless there is actual evidence of criminal intent. Of course, I know that the police are allowed to ask anyone anything they want at any time. However, unless they have at least a reasonable suspicion, they cannot detain or otherwise compel that person to do anything. They can tell the cops "none of your business" and be on their way, at least in theory.

Point taken. However, I think that there may be a loophole the cops can get around. Even if there is no physical criminal activity going on, you know that they're going to look for a reason to pull the car over. Don't signal when making a turn...that is all they need for the stop. Window tinits too dark...theres another. There are a ton of m/v violations that they can look for to give them reason to now pull the car over, and inquire.

There are many steps that can be taken that won't curtail freedom. One of many options would be to organize these neighborhoods with watch or community policing programs in collaboration with the actual police. These programs have been shown to be highly effective.

I agree 100% with you. Those are very good options. But, its just a matter of the residents of that area wanting to get involved. I'm sure many would, if they're complaining about the criminal activity going on, but some may fear retaliation. I don't think that they have to go so far as to have groups of citizens walking the street. That may be dangerous if they come upon criminal activity and the residents are not armed, but even if someone looks out their window and sees a drug deal going down. Getting vehicle descriptions, clothing, etc. just may aid the cops in a bust. The anonymous tips work wonders.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Ok, thank you for the clarification. And while I'm on a roll here..lol...another question for you. Now, going on your 2 scenarios with the stops, I do feel that it would be productive if they were looking for the things you mention...ie: drugs, guns, etc. Do you feel that they would not be looking for these things anyways? I mean, if you're going to pull someone over, you're going to be looking into the car upon walking up to it. The initial stop is to confirm whether or not the person lives there and while asking, looking for other stuff.

Well yeah, that's a given. Cop pulls you over and you have crack on your dashboard, you're kinda screwed. I was trying to use those as objective standards for sending people away, rather than just the cops discretion.

I guess a better example would be if the driver had some known gang symbol. If a cop saw that symbol, and knew that meant they were probably there to conduct gang activity, that'd be a much better, more objective reason then turning them away because their reason just didn't seem good enough. Much less chance of profiling being involved.