Unconsitutional Checkpoints? — DC’s Neighborhood Safety Zone Program
“My reaction is, welcome to Baghdad, D.C.,” said Arthur Spitzer, legal director for the ACLU’s Washington office. “I mean, this is craziness. In this country, you don’t have to show identification or explain to the police why you want to travel down a public street.” (Wash Post)
Last summer marked a tipping point for the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C. Drive-by shootings ravaged the neighborhood of Trinidad, and the police responded with an innovative program designed to curb the violence. Police Chief Lanier and Mayor Fenty created and implemented a very unusual type of checkpoint program.
The DC Court of Appeals recently heard a case challenging the constitutionality of this program under the Fourth Amendment.
The Blog of the Legal Times has more:
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, co-founder of the Partnership for Civil Justice Legal Defense & Education Fund, argued on behalf of D.C. residents who are challenging a police program called Neighborhood Safety Zones. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in October denied a preliminary injunction against the city, setting up the appeal.
Lawyers for the city say the zones, which were used last summer, are designed to prevent and deter criminal activity. Police stop and question drivers, asking for identification and travel plans. Officers are instructed to get phone numbers in order to verify information provided by the driver or passengers. Police say a Neighborhood Safety Zone can be set up for 10 days in response to a spike in crime.
My dad sent me this link when the NSZs were occurring last summer with the common question “is this legal?” My answer is no — it’s overbroad, unreasonable and violation of several First Amendment freedoms.
The program quarantined an entire neighborhood — fifty square blocks –where “officers will check drivers’ identification and ask whether they have a “legitimate purpose” to be in the Trinidad area, such as going to a doctor or church or visiting friends or relatives. If not, the drivers will be turned away.” (WaPo).
This pamphlet from the DC Police is hilarious: (click to enlarge)
Of course it’s constitutional! Because this other circuit court said so on similar but completely different facts. And there’s a carve-out for “the elderly.”
More on the NSZs in the next post…
Related posts:
Wow. I’m sure Con Law textbook authors have been looking for a new way to explain how something can be both over- and under-inclusive. This is my favorite part:
“[I]f the operator does not present a legitimate reason, the vehicle will be denied entry. The operator may park the vehicle elsewhere and enter the NSZ on foot.”
This will no doubt have a huge impact, given the number of drive-by shootings involving machine gun-rigged, James Bond-style spy cars.
D.C. residents must be thrilled that their government took steps to move hooligans with guns onto the street and public transportation system.
Reply to comment
That’s it though — the main problem was drive-by shootings, primarily rival gangs selling drugs in or near the same area. Something like 10-15 people were killed in a few weeks leading up to the checkpoints. So the MPD are trying to do something, but they’re doing the wrong thing.
Because the MPD were trying to make it a legitimate checkpoint program, they had to publicize it because of the significant impact on residents. But that also served to inform the criminals. So what happened was exactly what you’d expect, the tourniquet worked to stop violence temporarily during the program, and then the violence came back when the program stopped. It got so bad that the NSZs ran for like 11 days (# from memory) in July when the second roadblock was instituted.
Also because they were trying to make it (more) legitimate, they allowed for carve-outs like letting in those attending a religious or political meeting. But from a driver’s perspective, exercising your right to free association is contingent upon telling the officer where you’re going (to the marxist rally on 9th street) and having someone at that location (say, a marxist) pick up the phone and confirm that you’re going there. I’d think that’d be likely to chill your free exercise.
Reply to comment
Leave your response!
Little Geeks
Recent Comments
Receive LG Updates Through Email
Categories
Suggested Reading
Tags
Archive
Random Links
Blogroll
LG Sponsors
Sarasota Accident Lawyer
Florida Accident Lawyer