I'm all for civil liberties. It's silly to say the checkpoints were successful because no one got killed. I guess my viewpoints are being challenged by this situation. I am wondering, what would be a better solution, when you want to make a community safe, and you want to deter retaliation shootings?
Are you really surprised that someone is trying to get $$$ for nothing??? I don't think any of the "poor victims" live in Trinidad, much less on the check point street. If they lose, I hope they have to pay court costs.
Tells you the "give me a handout" mentality of these people. This is unbelieveble, we should be using our tax dollars more wise rather then defendng stupid suits like this. My guess is the people who brought the suit are part of Trinidads issues.
I say gate the whole damn neighbor"hood" and put police at the entrance permanently. Eventually all the people that don't like it hopefully will move out and let good respectable land owners move in. I just hope the judges see comments like this blog and not just the unemployed who will show up to protest the police taking action.
Are you really surprised that someone is trying to get $$$ for nothing???
The Post story says the plaintiff class is seeking injunctive relief. That's not "$$$".
These checkpoints are clearly unconstitutional, and I commend the plaintiffs for bringing it. This is yet another embarrassment brought to you courtesy of our sorry excuse for a DC Attorney General, Peter Nickles, who acts as if his client is the Mayor and not the citizens of DC.
Yeah imagine that, a US attorney actually trying to help fix the area. I hope he becomes the US attorney general. I commend him for not blocking the police from trying to stop the murders. It must be nice to sit back in your chair in some nice NW neighborhood and complain about the police and justice department personnel that are tying to help fix our area.
Can we institute a rule that you have to click on the link and read the article before commenting on it?
Look, folks -- the courts will determine the constitutionality of this procedure, just like they do for all other police procedures. Everyone agrees the police just want to stop violence, and hopefully we can also all agree that the Constitution sets important limits on police powers. The police believe this is constitutional while the plaintiffs think it's not. The courts will decide, and then we'll all move on.
"These checkpoints are clearly unconstitutional.."
Well, that certainly settles that!
Not to be too snarky, but I find it pretty amusing when an anonymous commenter rules on the constitutionality of some government action by linking to some unknown blogger, as though the third-tier blogger is the voice of Yaweh.
Just to review a bit: whatever the courts find to be constitutional is what is constitutional. If this were to go to the Supreme Court, and you think it would be struck down 9-0, you're delusional. So let's be a little less enthusiastic about these sorts of absolutes, ok? You might want to start by saying, "I think these roadblocks are unconstitutional" but that doesn't quite pack the same punch.
Oh, and as far as the question, "What idiots sue...?" There's currently a lawsuit working its way through the bowels of DC justice brought by the scumbag absentee father of a dead child who claims the District didn't do a good enough job protecting the child he abandoned from their mother. Hopefully that answers that question.
Actually, the blogger in question is one the leading Fourth Amendment scholars in the country and a former Supreme Court clerk. If you've never heard of him (nor bothered to spend the 10 seconds it would take to determine his credentials), it's your problem, not his or mine.
No where in the Constitution is the right to unfettered travel guaranteed. These checkpoints, which were nothing more than mere traffic stops, did not prevent anyone from entering or exiting the neighborhood. True, they required motorists to stop and provide a valid reason for their visit, but they did not prevent people from parking their cars and walking right past them without being questioned (or using one of the many other streets within Trinidad).
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. I do not see how forcing people to use an alternate street or an alternative means of transport (bus/walking) to enter a neighborhood if they did not want to enter via a traffic stop constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. What a waste of taxpayer money this trial will be!
Richie, here's what the Supreme Court said in 2000:
It is well established that a vehicle stop at a highway checkpoint effectuates a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.... We have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.... 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....
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.
The arguments that eck is merely pointing out were the heart of the exchanges at the council hearing. There was much questioning of Lanier as to the exact purpose of the checkpoints...ie were they in the line of ordinary law enforcement. Also much discussion of the Supreme Court cases that were talked about in the cited article. The presumptious attitude of many of the posts is amusing. Let's just ask the courts to read FT, we have the experts here! :)
There are differences between the recent DC checkpoint and Edmond. In Edmund, the City of Indianapolis used a checkpoint to search vehicles for illegal drugs. It's general purpose was to arrest people who had committed a crime. In DC, the police did not search vehicles and the checkpoint's general purpose was not "to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing." It could be argued that the DC checkpoint was used to promote safety in the area. If the checkpoint was used to prevent drive-by shootings on the weekends, it could be argued that the neighborhood was subject to "immediate, vehicle-bound threat to life and limb", similar to the referenced checkpoint in Sitz.
If the DC officers were directed to only check licenses and registrations and then turn away people who did live in the vicinity, the more intriguing question is not whether or not Edmund applies, but rather, the question of when an officer can require that you move along. Mr. Kerr even noted this less than one hour after his original posting.
lk, do you really think that checkpoints "to promote safety" are conceptually distinct from those set up for general crime control? (And given that the Trinidad checkpoints in particluar were clearly announced as a crime-fighting measure, isn't your suggestion a bit irrelevant?)
Also, even assuming the police have free-floating authority to arbitrarily order people to move along -- a rather questionable proposition, IMHO -- isn't there a wee bit of difference between "move along" ("you can't stay here") and "turn around, you can't enter this neighborhood"? Absent an immediate and specific need to clear an area -- say, a fire or water-main break -- I don't think the police can lawfully decide where in the city you & I can or can't travel.
(Richie: Edmond was decided by a 6-3 margin, FYI. And yes, it might be overruled next Term, just like the sun might explode next week. I wouldn't count on either if I were you.)
Just imagine if this much time, money, and energy was put into actually making Trinidad safer? I think the family members of those people murdered last month should sure. For something.
I think I'll sue the city the next time I can't drive down a street because it's under construction or blocked by a garbage truck. Don't I have a constitutional right to drive down any street I want to?
I live in Trinidad and I have/had no problems with the road block,but I think just the police presence through out the entire neighborhood would have been a better use of resources than being posted up on one of the safer blocks in trinidad.
Just FYI- Friday night the police were at Neal and Montello and they were randomly flagging cars to pull over. Like many other cars, I just did a U-turn and went down the alley.
And if I had been one of the cops, I would have seen all the cars making u-turns as the ones that were the most suspicious. But I'm not a cop either.
How are these Trinidad check points any different than a sobriety check point? Sobriety check points are set up where they they think they will catch the most drunks, so why wouldn't a criminal check point be set up where there's been a high rate of crime? I just don't see a lawsuit issue here at all - maybe a greed issue, but certainly not any civil liberties issue.
The "you are taking away my rights and I am not an equal" mentality is the reason these people put together a class action lawsuit. Just the fleecing of DCs tax dollars once again.
34 year old white male, lived in DC for 7 years, been the victim of violent crime 5 times
1 - Robbed at 4th and T NW 2 - Car jacked in Adams Morgan (Champlain Street and 18th 3,4 - Home burglarized twice on H Street NE 5 - Held up with a knife at Subway at 5th and Florida NE
All the crime committed against me was by someone of another race.
I applaud the police for at least changing their tactics and having the road blocks. I think they could have a better way to distribute the labor force but either way appreciate them trying to protect the community.
The people in the class action case are the enablers of the community. I would gladly go through a checkpoint daily to ensure the safety of myself and my neighbors
How are these Trinidad check points any different than a sobriety check point?
Perhaps too obviously, because they aren't sobriety checkpoints (which the Supreme Court has upheld). Instead, they're general crime-detection and -prevention checkpoints, which the Court struck down in Edmond, discussed at length above.
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 earlier case upholding sobriety checkpoints]. 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.
I live in Trinidad and I support the road blocks. I think they had value in that a) they probably did reveal "persons of interest" to undercover cops who were observing changes in behavior that occurred due to the road block and b) it adds to the perception that the police are using every means available to them to deny Trinidad to the criminals (at least those from outside). By that I mean if you're looking for a place to commit crime and you've got Trinidad here w/ roadblocks, police in cars, on bikes, on foot, on freaking horses and Segways for crying out loud, you're likely to choose someplace else as a risk-reduction strategy. I know that means the folks "somewhere else" now have a problem, but at least I feel a little safer about walking and driving in my own n'hood.
Idea? Why dont we just exterminate or fire squad all local residents that have more than three criminal offenses? I am pretty sure the majority of the crime is done by the low class area citizens with long arrest records.
Anonymous 34 yr old white male - Cracker you need to move! Don't you see by now your white ass ain't welcome in this hood? We niggs don't want you here no mo'!
Oh, can I say "craker white ass" here? What about "niggs" even if I am one? Should I have said "low class thugs" instead? Is there a difference?
I imagine I'll be edited out here - deemed too controverial or insensitive, but it probably won't be because of the "craker white ass" comment - we all accept that. For once, don't be afraid of the blacklash and protect free speech!
R.I.P. George Carlin. Never afraid of speaking the truth.
It makes me sad when people think it's wrong to challenge the constitutionality of *anything* the police do, which this boils down to. Because there are a lot of things police officers *could* do absent a Constitution that would make us a "safe" police state, but I'd rather live in a free republic and take my chances.
By the way, all the roadblocks in the world can't stop you from getting killed by anyone who happens to want to shoot you. So, why give up your liberty for the appearance of safety?
Soul Searcher said, "...but I'd rather live in a free republic and take my chances."
You do. Its just unfortunate that "people" take advantage of those freedoms everyday making the police necessary.
I, like most people I know, would RATHER live in a nice big secure house and if gates were available would probably take that too OR even a nice secluded cabin in the woods at the top of a mountain. But no, I live in the 'hood right now where my chances of actually being shot or assaulted or broken into are far greater then if I lived in one of these other desired scenerios.
Its sad that we even need the "police state" that you SAY you want to avoid, but I'd be willing to bet if you were honest with yourself, if they came along and decided to make Trinidad a gated community, your property values soared, and crime decreased dramatically, that most of you would want to stay or cash in so you can move to that moutain cabin or an even more desirable neighborhood. Or maybe you would want to sell BEFORE it got to that state so you could get a place in Sursum Corda where everyone still has their "freedom".
Ah, another guilty-feeling white trying to make apologies because not one of his five attackers was of his own race. Yet he still felt the need to say, "All the crime committed against me was by someone of another race."
Whites, your underlying guilt of your forefathers does nothing to genuinely help the black man. You are simply giving him fish out of your own guilt and desire to "make it right" (so they will go away?) instead of teaching him how to fish.
Blacks, your overt and often justified anger is preventing you from learning how to fish - either teaching yourself or accepting the lessons of those who genuinely want to see you succeed.
Please, you all take a chill pill. The White folks might have committed atrocity with slavery and putting down the black men, but the black men aren't helping themselves out by rising above all that. Look at the chinks and the southeast asians coming into this country with nothing. NADA. And within a generation, sometimes even the first generation immigrants themselves, they or their children are filling up the halls of Harvard and UMD. If they can rise above what they were given, as native speakers and with all sorts of affirmative actions availed to you, drop the gangster talk and pick up a book, so you can be doctors and rob people in living daylight by charging 100 bucks for three-minutes examinations instead of shooting down other people for money, drug or otherwise.
Well said. Blacks just complain about their status, complain about white folks, complain about the government, complain about jobs. Instead of complaining, stealing, killing, robbing, learn to teach yourself a skill. Look at the Mexican and Latin American folks at the Home Depot everyday. They wake up at 6an, take the bus or metro and will do any job that is offered to them. They don't complain, they work and make the best of the situation.
If you remember the famous quote from Mexican President Vicente Fox when telling the world how hard his culture works he said this "not even blacks will do". I do not agree with him 100% but there is a lot of truth behind that statement racist or not.
Quit bitching and start doing something productive instead of always playing the poor me syndrome or race card.
What about all the programs to support the disadvantaged, help them rise up from the poverty they have put themselves in? I see that as trying to teach the man to fish but he doesn't care to learn. It is easier to take the fish then exert the energy and time to do it himself.
Just like the woman in the NYT article who lived under public housing in Harlem for 50 years. She felt the need to complain about the neighborhood being changed but she never contributed to the neighborhood, never owned a house, business, etc. Instead she just took the handouts from the government and never thought about becoming self sufficient. Why? It is just easier to take than produce
My only point, and I am actually several "Anonymous" posts in this thread alone is that I hear you....
I agree that SOME (maybe many - I don't know the stats) "blacks aren't helping themselves out by rising above all that (slavery)" as you said and the following comment about social programs that "help them rise up from the poverty they have put themselves in?" But PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, do not make these comments as generalizations about "Blacks" as a whole, because that is what begins to fuel the fire on here.
The reality is that these statements are true about SOME blacks, just as there are negative stereotypical statements we could make about whites, but please lets be careful with our "all" statements.
Now what will be interesting is if SOME of the blacks that post on here will be willing to admit that there is some truth in these last two posts (minus the "all") or if it will be interpreted as racial slander. If its the latter, then clearly we're dealing with that overt anger that doesn't do a thing but perpetuate your own stereotypes.
Sounds like some of the "whites" are FINALLY speaking their truth on here - without any fear of the blacklash. We've heard how some of the "blacks" on here are "angry and fed up" at what some of the "racist whites" are saying, but its now starting to look like some of the "whites" are developing a guiltless backbone and are getting just as fed up with what some of the angry racist blacks are trying to say. I find it kind of refreshing actually. Now maybe some of the anger can be channeled into something constructive for the community as opposed to one another. Peace.
with a great deal of caution i'm going to add my 2 cents here. the over-the-top vitriol/name calling makes me hesitant, however i think the conversation is an important one.
i am a lifelong resident of the dc area (raised in falls church) and been living in trinidad for the last 3 1/2 years. my experience of living here has been overly positive. my block is pretty transient since it is mostly apartment buildings. this has made it difficult to get to know our neighbors on a "deep" level, however the vast majority of people i've come in contact with are good/trustworthy people.
as far as the checkpoint goes i was pretty displeased with it. i'm no expert in the matter and can't speak to either the constitutionality or policing effectiveness of it.
however, it seems to me that a major obstacle the police face in my neighborhood is a deeply ingrained mistrust of law enforcement. so while the checkpoint may have re-assured those who already believe the police should be on "their side." my conversations with neighbors suggests that the checkpoint also served to further alienate people who already are not prone to trusting the police.
my personal opinion is that it was mostly a pr move, just how it appeared to me.
Thanks Penn St Resident, you actually sort of answered my question (from Anon 10:12 on 6/23). I had not considered general/historic mistrust of the police. With that being said, even if a PR move, as a Trinidad resident, do you think the mistrust of others justifies there bringing a civil liberties lawsuit?
"do you think the mistrust of others justifies there bringing a civil liberties lawsuit?"
well i think those are 2 separate issues. law is something i know very little about (odd for someone with a lawyer for a sister), but i don't think "mistrust" is really a legal foot for a lawsuit.
my thoughts weren't really about the whole lawsuit thing, personally i don't really care one way or another about the lawsuit or legality of the checkpoint.
i was more expressing my thoughts about the general long-term effectiveness of the checkpoint. and not really in a "big picture" way, more what i've gleaned from my own conversations.
Listen, the crime will never stop in Trinidad. Look at what heppened after the police tried to curtail the crime with a checkpoint? The community sued them...sued the police who were attempting to make their streets safer. Does anyone else see this or am I all alone with my take on this
This is ridiculous. People used to have discussions on this forum that, while they did go into touchy areas like race, class, etc., there was a level of respect and intelligence that, for the most part, was observed by everyone during the argument.
Over the past few months, however, the race debates in particular, have devolved to the point where someone is including the phrases "Niggs" and "Crackers" and people are using this forum as a place to spew their ignorant crap.
Now I can see why the "regulars" have refused to join in these dicussions anymore which is a shame because my guess is that most of the people spouting off the ignorant crap on this board don't even live in this area.
I guess no one can really keep any of these arguments from swirling down the drain as they do, not even Inked, as long as its an open forum but I just hope that I'm correct in my assessment that those of you that I may run into in our neighborhood are willing to engage in honest, intelligent, rational discussion about such issues in "real life" even if your posts here indicate otherwise...
I actually find a lot of insight in many of these racially charged discusions. Like it or not, much of it is brutally honest from many sides. Clearly its something people WANT to talk about (need to talk about??) otherwise the race discussions wouldn't be among some of the longest threads when it comes up here. As for the "regulars" staying away - you, 3:44, posted as Anonymous as well, so I have no idea if you're a regular or not. How do we know that its not PooPoo discussing his racist views or Hillman talking about life in the 'hood, both as Anonymous. How do you know I'm not DCJaded presenting another point of view. You really don't. Frankly, I find these discussions of race pertain way more to what's goin on in our community and its future than anything "PooPoo" has ever said.
I too would have to say that citizen distrust of the police and the lawsuit over the checkpoint are two very different issues. For me, it is a major issue that the checkpoint could worsen citizen distrust of the police. I think most residents of Trinidad appreciate increased police presence, but not everyone appreciates it in this form. I tend to think the checkpoint was more of a PR stunt. On the justifications that MPD originally supplied, I don't believe the checkpoint was Constitutional. You may have noticed that Chief Lanier later said that the original reasons publicly supplied were not the real reasons for the checkpoint. She suggested that the real reason was that she had specific information that certain individuals planned to enter the neighborhood to commit a specific crime. If that were true, and if the information passed certain tests for credibility and reliability, I do believe that would make the checkpoints constitutional [provided that they were suitably calculated to actually avert that crime, and that averting that crime was the true intent of the MPD].
But, until a judge does some in camera review of that MPD assertion, we won't know anything. I think a suit is legally justified and non-frivolous on the publicly supplied grounds for the checkpoint. Basically, I think the lawsuit will probably succeed if the later offered MPD justification doesn't hold-up under judicial scrutiny.
Police are assigned to patrol certain areas, and they will patrol areas to which they are assigned. We are lucky to have a number of good MPD officers here in Trinidad. I believe that these officers will be safer, and better able to do their jobs if there is a high level of trust between residents and officers. Police are certainly not the enemy here. They are community partners and should be regarded as such. I just fear that efforts like the checkpoint hinder building necessary trust, and in that way endanger both residents and officers.
Well I have read a lot of things on this blog. Typically I really enjoy the race discussions. Listening to what others have said has made me think and change a few of my personal opinions. With that said I don't believe there is any reason to say things like "niggs", "Cracker you need to move!", "cracker white ass"...
You are a true biggeot and a racist not trying to spur discussions on the neighborhood.
Inked, thanks for not taking this post down so we can actually see the true feelings of our neighbors
You said, "Typically I really enjoy the race discussions. Listening to what others have said has made me think and change a few of my personal opinions."
This is why we have them and should continue to have them - no matter how bigoted or offensive it may become. "Race" is a HUGE issue behing most of what we discuss on this blog. I don't know that it can be avoided.
Inked (5:18), you said, " I believe that these officers will be safer, and better able to do their jobs if there is a high level of trust between residents and officers." And a lawsuit against their actions (to help our community) will accomplish this how?
You have been "assigned" to do a job (as you said), a group of people don't like how you're doing the job you've been assigned to do so then they bring a lawsuit to try to force you to do your job differently. Now these same policemen are assigned back to your area. Do you honestly think they are going to defend your area, consciously or not, with the same amount of vigor they had when originally asked to do their job? These guys are going to just hohum through your community and wait for their next weeks assignment around Lincoln Park where people trust and welcome their presence. Do you blame them?
You talk about some in your community not trusting the cops, what about the cops' trust of your community? I'm afraid that's been shot.
This whole lawsuit against DCPD from such a violent ridden area is just totally sad to me. I kind of feel sorry for the people that beleive they need to do that and especially for those of you who have to live near them.
Anon 1104, if you read the complaint you'll see that only one of the plaintiffs lives in Trinidad. The other plaintiffs come from the remain three quadrants of the District.
My comment about trust between citizens and officers was, as I stated, separate from the lawsuit.
The officers are not being sued, and this is not a situation in which individual officers are being accused of any wrongdoing. The lawsuit names the District of Columbia as the defendant. And yes, I full expect officers to do their jobs with the same vigor and professionalism they displayed prior to the checkpoints [I don't think you should assume that all MPD officers necessarily agreed with the checkpoints]. Plus, officers who are assigned to PSA 504 will stay in 504 unless they are transferred, and Lincoln Park is certainly not in 5-D, let alone 504. Of course, if they set up checkpoints over by Lincoln Park they might need to pull officers from 504, because it isn't like you can run a checkpoint with just a couple of cops.
56 comments:
I'm all for civil liberties. It's silly to say the checkpoints were successful because no one got killed.
I guess my viewpoints are being challenged by this situation. I am wondering, what would be a better solution, when you want to make a community safe, and you want to deter retaliation shootings?
foot patrols.
Are you really surprised that someone is trying to get $$$ for nothing??? I don't think any of the "poor victims" live in Trinidad, much less on the check point street. If they lose, I hope they have to pay court costs.
What idiots sue because the City was trying to make the streets safe? What a bunch of BS...
Tells you the "give me a handout" mentality of these people. This is unbelieveble, we should be using our tax dollars more wise rather then defendng stupid suits like this. My guess is the people who brought the suit are part of Trinidads issues.
I say gate the whole damn neighbor"hood" and put police at the entrance permanently. Eventually all the people that don't like it hopefully will move out and let good respectable land owners move in. I just hope the judges see comments like this blog and not just the unemployed who will show up to protest the police taking action.
Are you really surprised that someone is trying to get $$$ for nothing???
The Post story says the plaintiff class is seeking injunctive relief. That's not "$$$".
These checkpoints are clearly unconstitutional, and I commend the plaintiffs for bringing it. This is yet another embarrassment brought to you courtesy of our sorry excuse for a DC Attorney General, Peter Nickles, who acts as if his client is the Mayor and not the citizens of DC.
Yeah imagine that, a US attorney actually trying to help fix the area. I hope he becomes the US attorney general. I commend him for not blocking the police from trying to stop the murders. It must be nice to sit back in your chair in some nice NW neighborhood and complain about the police and justice department personnel that are tying to help fix our area.
Can we institute a rule that you have to click on the link and read the article before commenting on it?
Look, folks -- the courts will determine the constitutionality of this procedure, just like they do for all other police procedures. Everyone agrees the police just want to stop violence, and hopefully we can also all agree that the Constitution sets important limits on police powers. The police believe this is constitutional while the plaintiffs think it's not. The courts will decide, and then we'll all move on.
"These checkpoints are clearly unconstitutional.."
Well, that certainly settles that!
Not to be too snarky, but I find it pretty amusing when an anonymous commenter rules on the constitutionality of some government action by linking to some unknown blogger, as though the third-tier blogger is the voice of Yaweh.
Just to review a bit: whatever the courts find to be constitutional is what is constitutional. If this were to go to the Supreme Court, and you think it would be struck down 9-0, you're delusional. So let's be a little less enthusiastic about these sorts of absolutes, ok? You might want to start by saying, "I think these roadblocks are unconstitutional" but that doesn't quite pack the same punch.
Oh, and as far as the question, "What idiots sue...?" There's currently a lawsuit working its way through the bowels of DC justice brought by the scumbag absentee father of a dead child who claims the District didn't do a good enough job protecting the child he abandoned from their mother. Hopefully that answers that question.
Damn you, yl for making your point earlier and more gracefully than I.
some unknown blogger
Actually, the blogger in question is one the leading Fourth Amendment scholars in the country and a former Supreme Court clerk. If you've never heard of him (nor bothered to spend the 10 seconds it would take to determine his credentials), it's your problem, not his or mine.
No where in the Constitution is the right to unfettered travel guaranteed. These checkpoints, which were nothing more than mere traffic stops, did not prevent anyone from entering or exiting the neighborhood. True, they required motorists to stop and provide a valid reason for their visit, but they did not prevent people from parking their cars and walking right past them without being questioned (or using one of the many other streets within Trinidad).
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. I do not see how forcing people to use an alternate street or an alternative means of transport (bus/walking) to enter a neighborhood if they did not want to enter via a traffic stop constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment. What a waste of taxpayer money this trial will be!
Richie, here's what the Supreme Court said in 2000:
It is well established that a vehicle stop at a highway checkpoint effectuates a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.... We have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.... 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....
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.
The arguments that eck is merely pointing out were the heart of the exchanges at the council hearing. There was much questioning of Lanier as to the exact purpose of the checkpoints...ie were they in the line of ordinary law enforcement. Also much discussion of the Supreme Court cases that were talked about in the cited article. The presumptious attitude of many of the posts is amusing. Let's just ask the courts to read FT, we have the experts here! :)
Eck,
The beauty of our judicial system is that faulty Supreme Court rulings (particularly those with a 5-4 split) may be overturned by subsequent courts.
:-)
There are differences between the recent DC checkpoint and Edmond. In Edmund, the City of Indianapolis used a checkpoint to search vehicles for illegal drugs. It's general purpose was to arrest people who had committed a crime. In DC, the police did not search vehicles and the checkpoint's general purpose was not "to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing." It could be argued that the DC checkpoint was used to promote safety in the area. If the checkpoint was used to prevent drive-by shootings on the weekends, it could be argued that the neighborhood was subject to "immediate, vehicle-bound threat to life and limb", similar to the referenced checkpoint in Sitz.
If the DC officers were directed to only check licenses and registrations and then turn away people who did live in the vicinity, the more intriguing question is not whether or not Edmund applies, but rather, the question of when an officer can require that you move along. Mr. Kerr even noted this less than one hour after his original posting.
Doh -- Edmond, not Edmund.
lk, do you really think that checkpoints "to promote safety" are conceptually distinct from those set up for general crime control? (And given that the Trinidad checkpoints in particluar were clearly announced as a crime-fighting measure, isn't your suggestion a bit irrelevant?)
Also, even assuming the police have free-floating authority to arbitrarily order people to move along -- a rather questionable proposition, IMHO -- isn't there a wee bit of difference between "move along" ("you can't stay here") and "turn around, you can't enter this neighborhood"? Absent an immediate and specific need to clear an area -- say, a fire or water-main break -- I don't think the police can lawfully decide where in the city you & I can or can't travel.
(Richie: Edmond was decided by a 6-3 margin, FYI. And yes, it might be overruled next Term, just like the sun might explode next week. I wouldn't count on either if I were you.)
Woops! I misread the ruling to be 5-4. My bad.
(I too hope the sun doesn't explode next week).
Not living IN Trrinidad, I'm curious to know (minus all this legal jargon) what some of the FT readers who do live in the area think about:
1)The DCPD's attempt at curtailing the crime in your neighborhood?
2)The fact that some of your neighbors are now trying to sue the city because of the DCPD's attempt to curtail the crime in your neighborhood?
Do you prefer the first to the second? Would you rather your person and property be protected or your civil liberties?
Seems to me that if the first didn't happen, then the second wouldn't matter. But I'm not a lawyer.
Just imagine if this much time, money, and energy was put into actually making Trinidad safer? I think the family members of those people murdered last month should sure. For something.
I think I'll sue the city the next time I can't drive down a street because it's under construction or blocked by a garbage truck. Don't I have a constitutional right to drive down any street I want to?
I live in Trinidad and I have/had no problems with the road block,but I think just the police presence through out the entire neighborhood would have been a better use of resources than being posted up on one of the safer blocks in trinidad.
Just FYI- Friday night the police were at Neal and Montello and they were randomly flagging cars to pull over. Like many other cars, I just did a U-turn and went down the alley.
And if I had been one of the cops, I would have seen all the cars making u-turns as the ones that were the most suspicious. But I'm not a cop either.
How are these Trinidad check points any different than a sobriety check point? Sobriety check points are set up where they they think they will catch the most drunks, so why wouldn't a criminal check point be set up where there's been a high rate of crime? I just don't see a lawsuit issue here at all - maybe a greed issue, but certainly not any civil liberties issue.
The "you are taking away my rights and I am not an equal" mentality is the reason these people put together a class action lawsuit. Just the fleecing of DCs tax dollars once again.
<--- ME
34 year old white male, lived in DC for 7 years, been the victim of violent crime 5 times
1 - Robbed at 4th and T NW
2 - Car jacked in Adams Morgan (Champlain Street and 18th
3,4 - Home burglarized twice on H Street NE
5 - Held up with a knife at Subway at 5th and Florida NE
All the crime committed against me was by someone of another race.
I applaud the police for at least changing their tactics and having the road blocks. I think they could have a better way to distribute the labor force but either way appreciate them trying to protect the community.
The people in the class action case are the enablers of the community. I would gladly go through a checkpoint daily to ensure the safety of myself and my neighbors
How are these Trinidad check points any different than a sobriety check point?
Perhaps too obviously, because they aren't sobriety checkpoints (which the Supreme Court has upheld). Instead, they're general crime-detection and -prevention checkpoints, which the Court struck down in Edmond, discussed at length above.
Specifically,
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 earlier case upholding sobriety checkpoints]. 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.
I live in Trinidad and I support the road blocks. I think they had value in that a) they probably did reveal "persons of interest" to undercover cops who were observing changes in behavior that occurred due to the road block and b) it adds to the perception that the police are using every means available to them to deny Trinidad to the criminals (at least those from outside). By that I mean if you're looking for a place to commit crime and you've got Trinidad here w/ roadblocks, police in cars, on bikes, on foot, on freaking horses and Segways for crying out loud, you're likely to choose someplace else as a risk-reduction strategy.
I know that means the folks "somewhere else" now have a problem, but at least I feel a little safer about walking and driving in my own n'hood.
Idea? Why dont we just exterminate or fire squad all local residents that have more than three criminal offenses? I am pretty sure the majority of the crime is done by the low class area citizens with long arrest records.
uh oh Rob, is that a little NIMBY in you I see coming out:)
Anonymous 34 yr old white male -
Cracker you need to move! Don't you see by now your white ass ain't welcome in this hood? We niggs don't want you here no mo'!
Oh, can I say "craker white ass" here? What about "niggs" even if I am one? Should I have said "low class thugs" instead? Is there a difference?
I imagine I'll be edited out here - deemed too controverial or insensitive, but it probably won't be because of the "craker white ass" comment - we all accept that. For once, don't be afraid of the blacklash and protect free speech!
R.I.P. George Carlin. Never afraid of speaking the truth.
It makes me sad when people think it's wrong to challenge the constitutionality of *anything* the police do, which this boils down to. Because there are a lot of things police officers *could* do absent a Constitution that would make us a "safe" police state, but I'd rather live in a free republic and take my chances.
By the way, all the roadblocks in the world can't stop you from getting killed by anyone who happens to want to shoot you. So, why give up your liberty for the appearance of safety?
Soul Searcher said, "...but I'd rather live in a free republic and take my chances."
You do. Its just unfortunate that "people" take advantage of those freedoms everyday making the police necessary.
I, like most people I know, would RATHER live in a nice big secure house and if gates were available would probably take that too OR even a nice secluded cabin in the woods at the top of a mountain. But no, I live in the 'hood right now where my chances of actually being shot or assaulted or broken into are far greater then if I lived in one of these other desired scenerios.
Its sad that we even need the "police state" that you SAY you want to avoid, but I'd be willing to bet if you were honest with yourself, if they came along and decided to make Trinidad a gated community, your property values soared, and crime decreased dramatically, that most of you would want to stay or cash in so you can move to that moutain cabin or an even more desirable neighborhood. Or maybe you would want to sell BEFORE it got to that state so you could get a place in Sursum Corda where everyone still has their "freedom".
Anon 10:32:00 PM
I never used the word (niggs) in my post and dont understand your hostility. I believe that is part of this neighborhoods issues.
What I saod was (All the crime committed against me was by someone of another race.)
Please re-read the post
Ah, another guilty-feeling white trying to make apologies because not one of his five attackers was of his own race. Yet he still felt the need to say, "All the crime committed against me was by someone of another race."
Whites, your underlying guilt of your forefathers does nothing to genuinely help the black man. You are simply giving him fish out of your own guilt and desire to "make it right" (so they will go away?) instead of teaching him how to fish.
Blacks, your overt and often justified anger is preventing you from learning how to fish - either teaching yourself or accepting the lessons of those who genuinely want to see you succeed.
Now, can't we all just get along?
Please, you all take a chill pill. The White folks might have committed atrocity with slavery and putting down the black men, but the black men aren't helping themselves out by rising above all that. Look at the chinks and the southeast asians coming into this country with nothing. NADA. And within a generation, sometimes even the first generation immigrants themselves, they or their children are filling up the halls of Harvard and UMD. If they can rise above what they were given, as native speakers and with all sorts of affirmative actions availed to you, drop the gangster talk and pick up a book, so you can be doctors and rob people in living daylight by charging 100 bucks for three-minutes examinations instead of shooting down other people for money, drug or otherwise.
Well said. Blacks just complain about their status, complain about white folks, complain about the government, complain about jobs. Instead of complaining, stealing, killing, robbing, learn to teach yourself a skill. Look at the Mexican and Latin American folks at the Home Depot everyday. They wake up at 6an, take the bus or metro and will do any job that is offered to them. They don't complain, they work and make the best of the situation.
If you remember the famous quote from Mexican President Vicente Fox when telling the world how hard his culture works he said this "not even blacks will do". I do not agree with him 100% but there is a lot of truth behind that statement racist or not.
Quit bitching and start doing something productive instead of always playing the poor me syndrome or race card.
Anon 9:59:00 AM
What about all the programs to support the disadvantaged, help them rise up from the poverty they have put themselves in? I see that as trying to teach the man to fish but he doesn't care to learn. It is easier to take the fish then exert the energy and time to do it himself.
Just like the woman in the NYT article who lived under public housing in Harlem for 50 years. She felt the need to complain about the neighborhood being changed but she never contributed to the neighborhood, never owned a house, business, etc. Instead she just took the handouts from the government and never thought about becoming self sufficient. Why? It is just easier to take than produce
My only point, and I am actually several "Anonymous" posts in this thread alone is that I hear you....
I agree that SOME (maybe many - I don't know the stats) "blacks aren't helping themselves out by rising above all that (slavery)" as you said and the following comment about social programs that "help them rise up from the poverty they have put themselves in?" But PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, do not make these comments as generalizations about "Blacks" as a whole, because that is what begins to fuel the fire on here.
The reality is that these statements are true about SOME blacks, just as there are negative stereotypical statements we could make about whites, but please lets be careful with our "all" statements.
Now what will be interesting is if SOME of the blacks that post on here will be willing to admit that there is some truth in these last two posts (minus the "all") or if it will be interpreted as racial slander. If its the latter, then clearly we're dealing with that overt anger that doesn't do a thing but perpetuate your own stereotypes.
When do you think The Rev. Jesse Jerkson will make comments on the road blocks?
Sounds like some of the "whites" are FINALLY speaking their truth on here - without any fear of the blacklash. We've heard how some of the "blacks" on here are "angry and fed up" at what some of the "racist whites" are saying, but its now starting to look like some of the "whites" are developing a guiltless backbone and are getting just as fed up with what some of the angry racist blacks are trying to say. I find it kind of refreshing actually. Now maybe some of the anger can be channeled into something constructive for the community as opposed to one another. Peace.
with a great deal of caution i'm going to add my 2 cents here. the over-the-top vitriol/name calling makes me hesitant, however i think the conversation is an important one.
i am a lifelong resident of the dc area (raised in falls church) and been living in trinidad for the last 3 1/2 years. my experience of living here has been overly positive. my block is pretty transient since it is mostly apartment buildings. this has made it difficult to get to know our neighbors on a "deep" level, however the vast majority of people i've come in contact with are good/trustworthy people.
as far as the checkpoint goes i was pretty displeased with it. i'm no expert in the matter and can't speak to either the constitutionality or policing effectiveness of it.
however, it seems to me that a major obstacle the police face in my neighborhood is a deeply ingrained mistrust of law enforcement. so while the checkpoint may have re-assured those who already believe the police should be on "their side." my conversations with neighbors suggests that the checkpoint also served to further alienate people who already are not prone to trusting the police.
my personal opinion is that it was mostly a pr move, just how it appeared to me.
Thanks Penn St Resident, you actually sort of answered my question (from Anon 10:12 on 6/23). I had not considered general/historic mistrust of the police. With that being said, even if a PR move, as a Trinidad resident, do you think the mistrust of others justifies there bringing a civil liberties lawsuit?
"do you think the mistrust of others justifies there bringing a civil liberties lawsuit?"
well i think those are 2 separate issues. law is something i know very little about (odd for someone with a lawyer for a sister), but i don't think "mistrust" is really a legal foot for a lawsuit.
my thoughts weren't really about the whole lawsuit thing, personally i don't really care one way or another about the lawsuit or legality of the checkpoint.
i was more expressing my thoughts about the general long-term effectiveness of the checkpoint. and not really in a "big picture" way, more what i've gleaned from my own conversations.
"Cracker you need to move! Don't you see by now your white ass ain't welcome in this hood? We niggs don't want you here no mo'!
Oh, can I say "craker white ass" here? What about "niggs" even if I am one? Should I have said "low class thugs" instead? Is there a difference?"
MISS/SIR YOU ARE THE PEOBLEM, PEOPLE LIKE YOU. LISTEN TO YOURSELF! WAY TO MAKE AN INTELIGENT CONTRIBUTION
Listen, the crime will never stop in Trinidad. Look at what heppened after the police tried to curtail the crime with a checkpoint? The community sued them...sued the police who were attempting to make their streets safer. Does anyone else see this or am I all alone with my take on this
The black person's anger toward whites is understood; the white person's anger toward blacks is racism....
This is ridiculous. People used to have discussions on this forum that, while they did go into touchy areas like race, class, etc., there was a level of respect and intelligence that, for the most part, was observed by everyone during the argument.
Over the past few months, however, the race debates in particular, have devolved to the point where someone is including the phrases "Niggs" and "Crackers" and people are using this forum as a place to spew their ignorant crap.
Now I can see why the "regulars" have refused to join in these dicussions anymore which is a shame because my guess is that most of the people spouting off the ignorant crap on this board don't even live in this area.
I guess no one can really keep any of these arguments from swirling down the drain as they do, not even Inked, as long as its an open forum but I just hope that I'm correct in my assessment that those of you that I may run into in our neighborhood are willing to engage in honest, intelligent, rational discussion about such issues in "real life" even if your posts here indicate otherwise...
I actually find a lot of insight in many of these racially charged discusions. Like it or not, much of it is brutally honest from many sides. Clearly its something people WANT to talk about (need to talk about??) otherwise the race discussions wouldn't be among some of the longest threads when it comes up here. As for the "regulars" staying away - you, 3:44, posted as Anonymous as well, so I have no idea if you're a regular or not. How do we know that its not PooPoo discussing his racist views or Hillman talking about life in the 'hood, both as Anonymous. How do you know I'm not DCJaded presenting another point of view. You really don't. Frankly, I find these discussions of race pertain way more to what's goin on in our community and its future than anything "PooPoo" has ever said.
I too would have to say that citizen distrust of the police and the lawsuit over the checkpoint are two very different issues. For me, it is a major issue that the checkpoint could worsen citizen distrust of the police. I think most residents of Trinidad appreciate increased police presence, but not everyone appreciates it in this form. I tend to think the checkpoint was more of a PR stunt.
On the justifications that MPD originally supplied, I don't believe the checkpoint was Constitutional. You may have noticed that Chief Lanier later said that the original reasons publicly supplied were not the real reasons for the checkpoint. She suggested that the real reason was that she had specific information that certain individuals planned to enter the neighborhood to commit a specific crime. If that were true, and if the information passed certain tests for credibility and reliability, I do believe that would make the checkpoints constitutional [provided that they were suitably calculated to actually avert that crime, and that averting that crime was the true intent of the MPD].
But, until a judge does some in camera review of that MPD assertion, we won't know anything. I think a suit is legally justified and non-frivolous on the publicly supplied grounds for the checkpoint. Basically, I think the lawsuit will probably succeed if the later offered MPD justification doesn't hold-up under judicial scrutiny.
And the police will avoid your neighborhood worse than the plague that has already seized it. Too bad.
Police are assigned to patrol certain areas, and they will patrol areas to which they are assigned. We are lucky to have a number of good MPD officers here in Trinidad. I believe that these officers will be safer, and better able to do their jobs if there is a high level of trust between residents and officers. Police are certainly not the enemy here. They are community partners and should be regarded as such. I just fear that efforts like the checkpoint hinder building necessary trust, and in that way endanger both residents and officers.
Well I have read a lot of things on this blog. Typically I really enjoy the race discussions. Listening to what others have said has made me think and change a few of my personal opinions. With that said I don't believe there is any reason to say things like "niggs", "Cracker you need to move!", "cracker white ass"...
You are a true biggeot and a racist not trying to spur discussions on the neighborhood.
Inked, thanks for not taking this post down so we can actually see the true feelings of our neighbors
You said, "Typically I really enjoy the race discussions. Listening to what others have said has made me think and change a few of my personal opinions."
This is why we have them and should continue to have them - no matter how bigoted or offensive it may become. "Race" is a HUGE issue behing most of what we discuss on this blog. I don't know that it can be avoided.
Inked (5:18), you said, " I believe that these officers will be safer, and better able to do their jobs if there is a high level of trust between residents and officers." And a lawsuit against their actions (to help our community) will accomplish this how?
You have been "assigned" to do a job (as you said), a group of people don't like how you're doing the job you've been assigned to do so then they bring a lawsuit to try to force you to do your job differently. Now these same policemen are assigned back to your area. Do you honestly think they are going to defend your area, consciously or not, with the same amount of vigor they had when originally asked to do their job? These guys are going to just hohum through your community and wait for their next weeks assignment around Lincoln Park where people trust and welcome their presence. Do you blame them?
You talk about some in your community not trusting the cops, what about the cops' trust of your community? I'm afraid that's been shot.
This whole lawsuit against DCPD from such a violent ridden area is just totally sad to me. I kind of feel sorry for the people that beleive they need to do that and especially for those of you who have to live near them.
Anon 1104,
if you read the complaint you'll see that only one of the plaintiffs lives in Trinidad. The other plaintiffs come from the remain three quadrants of the District.
My comment about trust between citizens and officers was, as I stated, separate from the lawsuit.
The officers are not being sued, and this is not a situation in which individual officers are being accused of any wrongdoing. The lawsuit names the District of Columbia as the defendant. And yes, I full expect officers to do their jobs with the same vigor and professionalism they displayed prior to the checkpoints [I don't think you should assume that all MPD officers necessarily agreed with the checkpoints]. Plus, officers who are assigned to PSA 504 will stay in 504 unless they are transferred, and Lincoln Park is certainly not in 5-D, let alone 504. Of course, if they set up checkpoints over by Lincoln Park they might need to pull officers from 504, because it isn't like you can run a checkpoint with just a couple of cops.
Post a Comment