DC: Police State, aka "Neighborhood Safety Zones"

If we did away with mandatory sentencing for nonviolent drug offenses, or even better just end the lie of the war on drugs, we'd have plenty of room and money to keep the violent offenders locked up in cages where they belong. If simply putting more people in prison were the answer we'd have stopped all this long ago and we'd be the safest country in the world since we have a larger percentage of our population locked up than any other country. The problem is we are putting the wrong people in prison for the wrong reasons.

We have to let murderers, rapists, and violent offenders out every day because we are keeping some guy locked up who was smoking a joint in his living room while watching Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail.
 
The thing is the cops doent do a better job becasue they are following the laws about probable cause and illegal searches.

On second thought why am I even trying to explain it to you Master Blaster, you don't have a clue why the streets are so bad because you dont work them. Nothing I say will change your mind about the cops being the heavy handed controlling stormtrooper that you believe them to be. So why should I even bother trying.

There goes that pesky constitution again, what with people demanding some stupid right about illegal searches, we police are handcuffed. We certainly are not heavy handed stormtroopers, we ignore those stupid rules about probable cause and illegal searches for your own good!
 
Nothing I say will change your mind about the cops being the heavy handed controlling stormtrooper that you believe them to be. So why should I even bother trying.

Sure it will. BTW I work in Criminal Justice, thats why I made the comment that I did. Stopping and searching everyone will not make the police officers job easier, IT will alienate the folks they need to help them do their job.

If they want to do the storm trooper approach which is what the DC police are doing, why stop everyone???? Concentrate on the repeat offenders.:) When the neighbors see the police busting the trouble makers, even if they have to do it several times, then maybe the neighbors will feel safer sharing information with the police.
 
But historically in this country we have disallowed such constitutional breaches as a hedge against the "someday" when a government official who does NOT have good intentions tries to do the same thing to further some evil plan.

Ok, I see your point. Maybe its just me being naive again and not understanding that that "someday" could happen. I still see that a long way off for our society. Again, maybe the bar will continue to move that way as it has and the next time a neighborhood is having problems, maybe they do house to house searches "for the good of the people". And yet again, maybe I am trying to balance the two out loud. Great point you bring up Tim, thanks.

Give the legit residents the right to arm themselves and watch the crime rate plummet!

Yea, but thats not the police who are preventing that from happening, thats the beaurocrats in Washington who are disallowing them from doing so. Arming citizens would not be something the police could allow to happen because its against the law already.

Maybe tomorrow a majority of them will decide that the crime problem is caused by those residents with dark skin and if they just removed all of them the neighborhood would be safe. Maybe the majority would like all of those below a certain income level removed for the safety of the community. Maybe they will decide they should put all of the dark skinned men under 30 into special holding areas where they will be supervised by heavily armed police (they need to use that military gear for something). Don't ever think it cannot happen here, it can, and the way we are heading as a country it probably will in our lifetimes.

And just as easily as all of that bunk could happen, so could this. Little Johnny is playing outside when a driveby shooting occurs and a stray bullet strikes him and he ends up dying en route to the hospital. But, if the PD had of been there, then there is no guarantee they would have caught the BG, but there is a greater chance that this would not have happened to little Johnny, thus saving his life. See you can't argue on the basis of "what if's", it just doesn't prove anything at all.

The government will promise to protect you from terrorists and criminals but who will protect you from the government?

If I am not mistaken we still have a representative form of government. The ones that we would be protecting ourselves from are the very ones we elected.
 
First the disclaimer. I am not a lawyer and I don't claim to be an expert in constitutional or D.C. laws.

First: Checkpoints
I'll presume that the definition of a highway in D.C. is similar to California. That is, it's a way or place of whatever means, publicly maintained and open to the public for purposes of vehicular traffic.

Checkpoints call into question whether the road(s) they secure are any longer "open to the public". If not, the police forfeit their ability to enforce the vehicle code on those roads.

Second: Interrogations
If the road is deemed nominally open to the public (because some members are allowed to pass), then the constitutional question has to be raised about permitting stops and interrogations with no probable cause.

Being forced to provide a reason for passage is an invasive interrogation. Such questions as "where are you going?" or "Who are you going to visit?" or "what's your business here?" are inappropriate on a public thoroughfare.

In so far as I know, public highways are just that - public. One does not need a reason to be on that highway (or road) to justify using it.

Third: Criminalizing legal conduct
In fact, courts have held that you don't need to respond to an officer's questioning, we can presume that not responding means one of 3 things.
1. The road is closed to you, a member of the public and you must drive some other route.
2. The officer(s) will claim you are not "cooperating" and decide to detain you further (another rights violation)
3. An officer will "see" a suspicious item on the rear floor and your vehicle will be searched. When nothing is found it'll be a case of "shadows & illusions" due to poor lighting.

One can imagine the government response to citizens taking this task into their own hands. They would be deemed vigilantes or accused of "usurping" police powers (which citizens delegate to thier cities).

Courts have typically allowed such stops during exigent circumstances, such as a man-hunt for a criminal or escapee. This was because the checkpoints were both temporary in length as well as focused on the pursuit of a known person(s). This is quite different than requiring citizens to show their ID's (papers) and respond to questions about their travels (und vat ist the purpose of your visit to Stuttgart, Herr Bartlett?)

This latest "authoritarian" tactic is claimed to be a response to "escalating crime" or "a surge in homicides". Does anyone remember that this is the same argument used to pass the 1976 handgun ban? That the D.C. government had to do something? Well, they tried banning handguns. They required other guns to be unloaded and locked up (or dismantled). D.C. banned "assault-weapons" entirely. They wanted to go door-to-door asking about weapons but scaled that back. But 40 years ago such a suggestion might have resulted in impeaching or recalling the promotor of such an idea. Now they're using this constitutional abortion of an idea.

So much of this could be solved easily.

If only residents could defend themselves and their homes against the thugs and predators.
 
Even defense of home isn't adequate by itself. Defense of self in public via carry rights is necessary. Otherwise you merely shift the field of crime to out among the populous and you establish that authoritarians can do as they wish to you which is what is seen here. A return to proper balance of power in favor of the individual over the state and law abiding over criminal is needed.

I for one am greatly distressed that the Heller plaintiffs did not go far enough in asserting carry rights on equal if not greater emphasis than home defense.
 
Give this a year or two, or maybe even less.

An old school Cadillac lowrider with 20" gold plated rims rolls into a bad part of DC. The driver and passenger, two very threatening-looking black men, are wearing large amounts of flashy bling jewelry and are yammering away on what appears to be dispoable cellphones. They have to yammer loudly, because the gangsta rap being pumped out of the 14" dual subwoofers in the trunk is quite deafening.

The Cadillac stops at one of these checkpoints. A police officer taps on the window, and the driver rolls the window down.

"Sir, in accordance with the DC "Responsible Drivers Act of 20XX," I'd like to ask you a few questions."

"I didn't do nuttin!"

"Then you have nothing to hide."

"What do you want then?"

"Sir, are you transporting any firearms or drugs in your car, crack cocaine, ecstasy, marijuana...."

"Hellz no!"

"Again, in accordance with "Responsible Drivers Act of 20XX," would you mind if I search your car?"

(As it turns out, these threatening-looking black men with bling and disposable cellphones and gold rims and gangsta rap are much smarter than the cop assumes) "I got no legal obligation to let you search my ride! Get outta my face!"

Just then, a second cop, wearing plain clothes, walks up with a German Shepphard. The dog stares intently at the passenger's coat, then sits and stays motionless.

First cop draws, aims, and yells, "hands where I can see them!"

****

Sounds unreasonable? Well, Sheriff Joe Arpaio did it once.

There was a time when NYC cops checked people's bags at subway stations. Sure, the searches were "voluntary...."

Once you can justify a checkpoint, it becomes so much easier to justify so many more things.
 
Does anybody think Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and the others ever assumed they would have to specifically state that people need to be secure in their persons against searches by metal detectors, scanning technology and dogs?

I didn't think so.

All these violations of freedom seem perfectly reasonable when they are used against THOSE people. THOSE people would be any who are currently deemed a danger. Yesterday they were rum runners and pornographers. Today they are terrorists and drug dealers. Tomorrow they may be you or me.

The only way to present a gov't from abusing a power is not to empower it in the first place.
 
I guess I was unclear about this.

The thing is the cops doent do a better job becasue they are following the laws about probable cause and illegal searches.

Probably should have said Cops doent do a more effiecent job because they are following the laws about probable cause.

Yes Law enforcement Officers "know" that someone is holding drugs (Dealing), but because the do not have the time to establish probale cause they can do nothing.

Take for example one of my clients. I will call him Mr. X for the purposes here.

History- Petty stuff, little thefts and such until one day he enters the big league and when stopped by a cop about the stolen motorcycle he was riding on, he runs then takes a shot a the cop. The cop shoots back and wings him in the leg.

Mr. X goes away does a couple of years up state. Released on Parole back to his mothers house (this is where I come in). Does not get a job, but meets all other requirements, states he is looking for a job. Couple months go by, I get word while busting another Parolee that he bought the crack from Mr. X. Start watching Mr. X more closely. Talk to cops in the neighborhood. They are watching him too. (He is hanging out at another house around the corner) I go into his house look around, nothing. (Since the other house he is hanging out in is not his residence I cannot search there, and unless the cops build a case, they cant either)

Get another tip, search the house find a couple of rounds and some magazines for some handguns. (No guns). Have a hearing, Mom comes up and lies for him, saying it was someone elses. Thanks to my brilliant handling of the case he gets sent away for a couple of months. Fast forward, he is let out and is in a halfway house, decides to go on the run.
Commits a crime three blocks from his mothers house. Cops search his mothers home, find drugs there. (His brother lives there as well, he is also on Parole, will get back to him in a minute)

Cops catch him, so he has the new criminal convictions and the technical parole violations as well. (Have yet to see what he gets.)

Back to Mr. Xs brother who was living in the house at the time of the arrest. He did not report that the police raided his home or the drugs found to his Parole Agent (surprise, surprise) I report the raid to his Parole Agent, who will confront him next time he comes in.

How did I find out about the drugs found in the raid, I happened to see Mr. X because his new hearing was held the same day as another one I was at. I read the police report, and put two and two together.

How could this work better, better sharing of info between agencies, maybe a civil act that would require thier computers to know where our Parolee live. Maybe a liason officer between our two departments who looked for such occurences. A law that allowed the Police to search known Parolees without probable cause (a law such as that was proposed but no headway has been made.)


Why dont cops and Parole agent work harder? Because we are overworked as it is.

By the way Master Blaster what type of LE agency do you work in? your stated occupation in your profile is Computers? Just curious?
 
Yes Law enforcement Officers "know" that someone is holding drugs (Dealing), but because the do not have the time to establish probale cause they can do nothing.

Again, the CONUS is there for a reason. Sorry that our freedom and our rights get in the way of you beating confessions out of people or stomping cats, but in this country we have RIGHTS that are GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION regardless of what you think you know.

Cops with this attitude make me sick.
 
After Action Report; 1st weekend...

Comment: Police are tuning up their tactics. No doubt the homies are tuning up their alibis, also. No shootings, good deal (constitutional issues notwithstanding)? The ice cream truck incident comes straight out of a Quentin Tarenitino script!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902696.html

Police Close Streets In Trinidad to Steer Drivers to Checkpoint

D.C. police stepped up efforts last night to curb violence in the hard-pressed Trinidad neighborhood of Northeast Washington, choking off access to several streets there to force drivers to pass through the new anti-crime checkpoint, Chief Cathy L. Lanier said.

The Montello Avenue checkpoint, where police demanded that motorists account for their presence in the neighborhood, was set up Saturday night for the first time, but some drivers circumvented it by using nearby streets to enter Trinidad, Lanier said.

She said police were "going to be narrowing the funnel a little bit" by guiding the flow of traffic toward Montello Avenue. However, it appeared that the number of officers assigned last night was insufficient to fully implement the plan, and the strategy took on many aspects of a work in progress.

"We're looking at different ways to control traffic patterns," Cmdr. Melvin Scott said.

As traffic backed up, officers found it necessary to remove traffic cones that were intended to close some of the streets. Nevertheless, the checkpoint operated on Montello Avenue, where motorists were questioned closely about their reasons for being there and were asked to provide identification.

On Saturday, police turned away about half of the 50 cars that tried to pass through the checkpoint. Twenty-six drivers were denied access because they "refused to give enough information to continue through Trinidad," said police spokeswoman Traci Hughes, offering the first statistical review of the law enforcement activities.
ad_icon

The neighborhood had no shootings over the weekend, officials said, proclaiming the checkpoint program a success. Trinidad appeared quiet again last night, police said.

The checkpoint was suspended Sunday night for operational reasons unconnected to any complaints, Lanier said, but resumed last night.

Police did stop some cars on nearby streets Sunday, but only to check for seat-belt use.

In announcing her "Neighborhood Safety Zone" initiative last week, Lanier said the checkpoint in Trinidad would run for five days and then perhaps for another five.

Police ran the checkpoint on Montello Avenue for about two hours Saturday, starting at 7:45 p.m. They made one arrest, for driving with an open container of alcohol. Four other drivers who were turned away asked to speak to a police supervisor but were still denied access.

Under Lanier's program, which she said she plans to replicate in other troubled parts of the city, only people with a "legitimate purpose" can pass through the checkpoints. Acceptable reasons include visiting someone or attending a community or religious event.

On Saturday, those who told police that they were going to visit a relative were turned away if they did not provide the relative's phone number so officers could verify their claim, Hughes said.

Leaders at the American Civil Liberties Union, who have criticized Lanier's effort as heavy-handed, were in Trinidad on Saturday night. They questioned the statistics provided by police and said they estimated that 90 percent of cars were turned away.

"Our analysis is different from theirs," said Johnny Barnes, executive director of the ACLU's Washington office. "We think most people were turned away."

He said it became a joke among his workers when they saw police stop an ice cream truck. It was eventually let through.

"It's an ice cream truck," Barnes said. "I mean, ice cream.":p

Brian Forst, a professor of criminal justice at American University, said it is difficult to judge whether it was appropriate to turn away so many motorists.

"I'd be more concerned if they let in somebody who killed someone," Forst said. "They can't afford to have more homicides there, even if it comes at the pain and suffering of decent people. I can understand that calculus."

Residents of the Trinidad area said yesterday that they would have preferred the police presence in the neighborhood without the checkpoint. Some said it was easy to circumvent police by using other streets, an action that police apparently were trying to thwart last night.

"As cars came up, they made lefts and rights and went the other way," neighborhood activist Wilhelmina Lawson said. "I support them, and I understand what they're trying to do, but I think they're missing it by not sitting down and talking to the residents. We can help them much better if they talk to us."

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) said he will hold a hearing Monday on how the checkpoints affect civil liberties. "Observing it reinforced my view it is not effective and reinforced my view it's harmful to police-community relations," he said.

Lanier sent an e-mail within the department Sunday praising officers for their work and calling public criticism "unfortunate."

"We are simply trying to reduce the opportunity for violent offenders to enter a neighborhood for the sole purpose of taking someone's life," Lanier wrote. "We also realize that we can carry out this mission professionally without depriving any law abiding resident of their rights -- most importantly their right to be safe in their own community."

Traffic stops are used as a crime-fighting tool in other cities across the country, especially in "hot spots" in which there are spurts of violence, according to a report released last month by the Washington-based Police Executive Research Forum.

But unlike what has happened in the District, other police departments do not turn motorists away from an area during the stops, according to the report. Instead, some look for guns and drugs and make arrests. Others said they use it as a community outreach tool, handing out fliers saying that there has been violent crime in the neighborhood.

Police in Baltimore, where there has been a 36 percent decrease in homicides and shootings this year, said they attribute that to targeting violent criminals and improving relationships with members of the community.

"You lock up the baddest of the bad in part by working with people in the neighborhood," Baltimore police spokesman Sterling Clifford said. "You look to people in the neighborhood to tell you who they are and where they are."
 
Again, the CONUS is there for a reason. Sorry that our freedom and our rights get in the way of you beating confessions out of people or stomping cats, but in this country we have RIGHTS that are GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION regardless of what you think you know.

Cops with this attitude make me sick.

COTUS = Constitution of the U.S.
CONUS = CONtinental U.S. (Military Term)

I find your comments insulting, exaggerated and well out of line with regards to the comments made by TwoXForr. His point was that parolees already have limited rights, but there is not, yet, authority to search a parolee without PC.

Do some cops try to "game" the system based on court rulings? Undoubtedly. But I think the majority of cops simply want to prevent criminals from plying their trade and get them into jail without making any of 1,623 minor mistakes that'll get it tossed out. Implying that cops (or a fellow TFL member) want to beat false confessions out of people or wantonly kill pets makes me worry that you're not taking your medication, again.
 
Twenty-six drivers were denied access because they "refused to give enough information to continue through Trinidad," said police spokeswoman Traci Hughes, offering the first statistical review of the law enforcement activities.

Police are now requiring a reason to drive on a public highway? How do I get my tax money back that was used to maintain this private drive that I can no longer use?

Police did stop some cars on nearby streets Sunday, but only to check for seat-belt use.
Perhaps D.C. never has it's politicians promise that "seat belt checks" would never be used as an excuse to stop motorists. But in a number of states it is expressly prohibited.

On Saturday, those who told police that they were going to visit a relative were turned away if they did not provide the relative's phone number so officers could verify their claim, Hughes said.
I'm sorry, but I am under no obligation to provide private information to justify my use of a public highway or to even respond to such a snoopy question.

If the goal is to deter criminal activity, couldn't that be better served by putting all those officers into 2-man cars and letting them cruise around the 8-block area all night? Then they can stop any suspicious cars, watch for suspicious persons or activities, perform traffic enforcement and more. I would imagine that such a plan might actually work just as well, but lack the video drama that Lanier seeks for her department.
 
COTUS = Constitution of the U.S.
CONUS = CONtinental U.S. (Military Term)

Typo. I didn't pick on anyone's spelling (like the use of "probale cause" or the word "doent" in his post)

He most certainly was not speaking of parolees. His first post was:

The thing is the cops doent do a better job becasue they are following the laws about probable cause and illegal searches.

How is that not advocating that cops ignore PC and the constitutional protections against illegal search?
 
The neighborhood had no shootings over the weekend, officials said, proclaiming the checkpoint program a success.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Ugh.

I don't live too far from Northeast. I'm almost tempted to drive straight through Trinidad and not give the police any information or ID. Say a bunch of legal stuff like "Um, this is a public road for (guess what?) public access" and "I'm under no obligation to defend my right or purpose to use this road," etc., etc.

Then I refuse to comply. Civil disobedience. I'll block lots of traffic, possibly get arrested. Then call the ACLU guys and win a big settlement.

Then again, it is Trinidad DC.... nevermind.

but some drivers circumvented it by using nearby streets to enter Trinidad, Lanier said....[...]

Residents of the Trinidad area said yesterday that they would have preferred the police presence in the neighborhood without the checkpoint. Some said it was easy to circumvent police by using other streets, an action that police apparently were trying to thwart last night.

You know, we could just skip all this slippery slope nonsense and implant the ID + GPS chips into our foreheads already.
 
I guess my languague skills are inadequate for the task, of stating simply that the cops may seem ineffiecent and unable to do all the public wants is because they are (willingly and willfully) follow the laws laid out for them by the Constitution and thier agencies.

So again they may know a person is "holding" but they can do nothing unless the have the time to build a case against them. And they may not have time to build a case against them because of the hundred and one other things they my be doing on thier shift.

As for any personal attacks, by anyone on this board, well I am well past caring what some faceless person typing on a keyboard, who knows where, types about my proffessional conduct or perhaps lack thereof. If they want to see how I do my job, or have an intelligent conversation about the rights of the accused or known offenders I would be more than willing to talk one on one with them.
 
Wow was looking for updates of this story and found this.

http://www.dcwatch.com/police/NSZ Lesson Plan.pdf

It is the training plan for DC Police Personal who are working these "safety" zones.

Did not read the whole thing, just glanced through it, you should take a look at page 21. These appear to be cards that the cops use as a checklist for determining if you have legimate reason to be there.

Here is what I was able to cut and paste:

Legitimate reasons to enter
the NSZ are:
The person:
• resides in the NSZ;
• is employed in the NSZ or is on a commercial
delivery;
• attends school or a day-care facility, or is taking a
child to or picking a child up from a school or day-care
facility in the NSZ;
• is a relative of a person who resides in the NSZ.
• is seeking medical attention, is elderly, or is disabled;
and/or
• is attempting to attend a verified organized civic,
community or religious event within the NSZ; or
An official the rank of sergeant or above assigned to the NSZ
approves the entry under exigent circumstances,.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but I am under no obligation to provide private information to justify my use of a public highway or to even respond to such a snoopy question.

While I agree that this practice is wrong, I also feel for the police that are at their wits end in lowering the crime rate.

What I find interesting is that the above position effectively validates the ACLU claim that this is just "picking on the poor people." Why? Around here, "gated" communities and nazi-like HOAs are springing up everywhere. The more money in the area, the tighter and more private the security. You almost have to give a DNA sample to get into some of those neighborhoods. Whatever 51% of the residents vote on, the other 49% have to live with - like it or not.

Sure, I understand the "public" vs "private" part. But if these less-fortunate folks had the money, don't you think the 50%+ of the law abiding residents wouldn't "vote" to make the neighborhood private?

Again, I agree that this is a bad practice and precedent. But I also see it as being the same practice and precedent as is being used by countless HOAs (which also have much more restrictive rules. No jail time for violating, but they can levy some outrageous fines.)
 
Back
Top