Beginning on Saturday, the police will stop all cars driving in the 1400 block of Montello. All drivers will be required to either produce identification proving that they live in the neighborhood, or have a valid reason to be there. Such reasons might include [1] attending church, [2] doctor's appointment, or [3] visiting friends or relatives. This could last up to 10 days.
Post coverage.
Examiner coverage.
32 comments:
I blogged on this. I don't think it is an effective use of police resources, I think it will be ineffective for dealing with the violent year Trinidad has seen, and I basically think it will just inconvenience people who are legitimately driving into the area (i.e. residents).
Imagine if you had to wait behind a line of cars getting into or out of your neighborhood...few affluent neighborhoods would stand for it, high profile crimes or not.
Montello is a one-way, one-lane street. Cordon off one block and you create a traffic clusterf--k. Criminals will walk by this traffic stop and shoot people around the corner while officers are wasting their time carding grandmothers driving back home.
nice. really nice.
they broadcast the operation in the media, saying they'll stop CARS.
do you really think that the 'car drivin' folks' aren't going to hear about this and subsequently frequent the area on foot and through back alleys?
i think i'm going to contact Tommy, and try to come up with a resolution to rename the DC MPD to
THE TARD SQUAD. it's more than fitting.
it's poetic.
GO GROOMES..... (dwindling 'YEAahhhh.... ugh').
whoa, you have got to be kidding!!! Someone should tell the Mayor that checkpoint charlie did not work in Berlin, Moscow, nor Soth Africa.
You all are a bunch of whining fools. What do you expect the police to do? They are doing the best they can. They have plenty of operations that are not broadcast or allowed to be talked about due to the covert nature. This is just one of the operations that they hope can help. Give them some credit or at least a good alternative if you don't like what they are doing. I am not a police officer but think these comments are useless. Provide some constructive criticism or shut up. I am a soldier in the US Army and we get these same comments from the public about why we are unsuccessful sometimes. Be part of the solution, everyone is looking for new/good ideas. Provide some!!
yea. seems a little too totalitarian for my sensibilities, but I guess the 1400 block of montello will be the safest block in the city (at least for 10 days). I have mixed feelings about this as it seems like it's more for show than actual policing, but I will be eager to see the crime stats and incident reports for the surrounding blocks and neighborhoods over that 10-day period.
I have to admit, I don't see the point of checkpoints in specific locations announced well ahead of time. This just seems like a useless show that won't accomplish anything. What about doing a roaldblock like this at regular intervals unannounced throughout the summer? That would be a lot more effective.
I have to agree with Soul Searcher.
This is fairly stupid. It seems designed to show that the cops are doing something. But in reality it's effectiveness would seem very limited, and I'm pretty uncomfortable with the government deciding who 'deserves' to be driving down a public street.
And you can bet this wouldn't happen in Georgetown. Of course, you could also argue that Georgetown didn't recently have the violence that Trinidad did.....
Naturally the preceding posters disclaim the idea of checkpoints while offering no solutions of their own. Here's a concept - if those from outside the neighborhood (ie. from Maryland and Virginia) know that they are going to get stopped, they may shop for their drugs elsewhere. Which would ultimately make Trinidad safer. I don't know for sure if this will work, or even if it will be implemented effectively.... but... since you are all criminologists... WHAT ELSE DO YOU THINK THE POLICE SHOULD DO???
I support this initiative
Support it. Give it a chance. People on this blog just cry about nothing. Why not commend the idea and if it fails miserably then complain like a second grader who just pissed their pants....
JESUS!!
Wow, I guess I need a PhD in Criminology before I can assert that once this 10-day roadblock is over, the criminals and drug-dealing will return. - Phil
Can we stop calling each other names? If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. If it works a little bit, it helps. Yes, at least it would be a temporary fix, but at least the criminals wouldn't be so brazen.
I agree with my neighbor Liz, who was just on Fox 5 expressing her support for this plan. It's not going to end crime here but they're trying something to see what effect it has. Like anon 6:19 said...unless you have the silver bullet that will end crime in Trinidad, why not give the cops their due for trying something?
Personally I don't care what the cops are doing...they can shoot pool, play cards, whatever they want as long as they and plenty of their buddies are doing it in Trinidad. Bring em on.
I had Mary Cheh for crim pro, and this sounds a great deal like one of the questions on a past exam. I know it took place on Montello, and I think it was actually the same block. Kind of funny. It seems like you'd have a greater effect dealing with stuff in other areas, or a wider area, but if you do a wider area, you don't know who turns on when. Maybe the police know that this is a traffic hot spot and really just want to deter traffic to that particular area. Still odd that law school exams repeat reality, and then reality repeats law school exams. I've heard rumors [and also the exam said] that they used to get actual traffic jams in that area because of all the people who used to line up to buy drugs right there.
I'm fairly straight laced, never been convicted of a crime, and had a security clearance but I'll be damned if I'll go through a checkpoint to go to my house. If they try this in my neighborhood, they can simply arrest me or get the hell out of my way.
f the police state.
OMG I'd have to say that area of Montello is relatively a quiet area. This would probably be more effective on the eastern side of Trinidad Ave or perhaps even more north on Montello would seem more appropriate. Maybe they can cover both sides of Trinidad Ave. But either way I'm confused by the selection of 1400 block of Montello...
Trinidad Home Owner
I too am thrown by the choice of location.
I'm wondering if they are going to stop the Buses that go down Montello and ask everyone for identification.
Trinidad Home Owner
Your paperz pleez. I vould like to zee your paperz!
So, do they have boxcars arranged for the citizens who don't comply?
Montello & Mt Oliver? YES
1400, 1500, 1600,1700 block of Montello? NO
Trinidad close to Mt Oliver? YES
I support the initiative, but they got the wrong targets.
for all the people asking if I had an alternative idea, click my name and read the blog entry I wrote on this under my 'truth to power' blog.
allow me to expound here though:
1) i thought more bike patrols might be more effective, as officers on bike can more safely cut down one way streets at high speeds against the direction of traffic (there are a lot of one way streets in trinidad and it would be a lot safer having a bike going against traffic at high speed than a cruiser). although i have no empirical proof of it, i personally think bike patrols look more 'community friendly' (it's also easier to call out to someone on a bike to alert them to a growing emergency than yelling to someone driving by with their windows up).
2) announcing the checkpoint in advance allows anyone who was planning to drive into trinidad to do something illicit to plot a different route. if they do checkpoints, they should be random, brief, and mobile. If incoming people plotting illicit activity had no idea when or where a one hour checkpoint would be stopping vehicles, it would seem to be more effective than announcing where the checkpoint will be in advance (perhaps there are more constitutional concerns b/c announcing the checkpoint reduces the 'expectation of privacy' defense?).
as for the guy in the u.s. army, comparing criticizing foreign policy with criticizing local police procedure is apples and oranges to the nth degree.
Inked, or other law students/lawyers -- do the police have a right to detain someone for refusing to show their ID at a checkpoint? I'm not suggesting anyone do this, I'm just curious if they have that power in the absense of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Also, if a driver produces a valid ID but does not live in the neighborhood, and does not have a "valid" reason for being there, can the police legally prevent him/her from entering?
actually, scratch the second idea. i'm opposed to checkpoints generally. that was just an idea of how to make an unacceptable idea more effective.
"Naturally the preceding posters disclaim the idea of checkpoints while offering no solutions of their own. "
Ok.
How about doing actual preventive policing, like real traffic stops, which result in very frequently finding people with outstanding warrants, drugs and guns, etc.
I've lived in DC for over a decade, and I've seen MAYBE five examples of DC cops actually doing a traffic stop.
And increased bike patrols have been very effective in other neighborhoods.
And of course we've had long discussions about long term social and cultural solutions in this very forum.
And we've talked about everything from crime cameras to better lighting and a more proactive police force generally.
Sorry we didn't answer to your satisfaction in this one particular instance.
Maybe your just upset that you joined the Army and not the Airforce...
Quality of Life baby!!!!!
"Inked, or other law students/lawyers -- do the police have a right to detain someone for refusing to show their ID at a checkpoint?"
Of course if you are driving a vehicle you are required to have a drivers license on you, and are required to show it on request.
I believe the Supreme Court has generally upheld the validity of DUI and similar safety checkpoints. I don't know about this proposed one, though, as it seems to be a lot more vague and the whole thing about telling people they can't enter the neighborhood if they haven't justified a 'legitimate reason' to the satisfaction of some government official is just, well, weird.
I checked with the ACLU and the Public Defenders Service yesterday, just to make sure I was remembering my Con Law correctly. Basically, the police might be in the right (Constitutionally, not common sense wise) to do road blocks for drivers. They can demand ID and then, with probably cause, search the car, etc. As for pedestrians, they cannot demand ID, but DC has all sort of laws about not obeying a direct order of a cop and interferring with a cop, that discretion just might be the better part of valor, unless someone has a video camera rolling. It will be interesting to see what happens.
I know it's already been said, but if I was a drug dealer, I'd just sell drugs on another street/ drive into Trinidad by another means. Maybe this is all a rouse, and they will put the checkpoint somewhere else. Dang, I just gave up their secret!
Don't you guys get it. The road blocks are not meant to catch drug dealers. The police would be foolish to think otherwise. Whoes It brings attention to the neighborhood. The last thing any drug dealer needs is attention.
This is getting national pub. If I were a buyer, I would seek another location miles from the checkpoint. Right or wrong, give the police credit for trying something rather than nothing! For that, I applaud them.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever." --George Orwell
I guess the crux is: can a police officer order you to do something when that order violates your constitutional rights but has no imminent public safety rationale?
for example, police can infringe your freedom of movement near crime scenes, near hostage situations, etc.
granted.
but to stop a citizen WITH required ID from entering a neighborhood b/c that citizen's reason to enter is 'invalid'? absent any threat posed by the citizen or any danger in the area being barricaded? or other public safety interest?
seems like the officers are being asked to potentially violate someone's constitutional rights to me.
here's another scenario: what if the driver has ID and the passengers don't? can they all be detained? what if only one passenger has a valid reason to enter but his/her fellow passengers don't?
this just seems like an overly complicated, clumsy way to respond to a problem that could be better addressed with other means, like more bike patrols, better community relations work (to learn about ongoing 'beefs'/threats), etc
being a police officer is hard...i don't see how this will make their job easier OR reduce crime, IMO.
The issues is drug dealers IN DC, NOT the folks from other places coming here to buy them. The problem is INTERNAL- that's where the work needs to happen. Why do we accept people selling drugs, but NOT people from MD coming to buy them? It's like stopping people from buying illegal fireworks at various stands, but allowing the stands to continue.
Post a Comment