Category: D.C.

The Examiner reports that Fenty and Lanier will continue their unconstitutional military-style checkpoints for the time being.

Meanwhile outside the “Red Zone” (the Trinidad neighborhood), in what I would guess you would call the “Green Zone”, at least eight people were shot and wounded (luckily, no fatalities), including a 12 year-old boy and a 19 year-old woman. One of the shootings was officer involved. The office shot and wounded a man after the officer was attacked with his own baton (The Washington Post).

Maybe the officer would have had backup and wouldn’t have been forced to shoot the guy if you didn’t have dozens of officers manning unconstitutional checkpoints?

In all of these incidents, a firearm was used. Guns are illegal in Washington, D.C.

If someone violates the utterly useless firearm ban, do you expect them to tell the truth to police officers at a checkpoint (a great question The Examiner asks)?

Does anyone remember when Lanier said that the city doesn’t have any gangs? Instead, they have “crews” which are distinguished from gangs because crews are created for self-defense and not for criminal enterprises (she must have never taken a college class on gangs and isn’t aware the fact that gangs are created as a means for teenagers to protect themselves and usually evolve into a group that commits crimes) (The Washington Times, American Street Gangs, p. 112).

Apparently, the “Skull Krusher Crew” (the actual name) in Prince George’s County didn’t get that memo when they robbed and beat to death a 56 year-old West African immigrant (The Washington Post).

And perhaps the greatest political cartoon ever (from The Examiner):

Subtitle: “Constitutional rights? What are those? …Seriously?”

I could also count up the number of days from about at least nine months ago but I’m too lazy.

From my new favorite source of news, The Examiner:

Nearly two decades before Mayor Adrian Fenty’s attempt to quarantine dangerous neighborhoods, D.C.’s appellate court said no way to a police cordon planned for the same area.

In a 1991 decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals — the highest court of review for local government — ruled that a checkpoint on Montello Avenue violated the civil rights of two men who were arrested at barricades.

“The purported deterrence rationale for the … roadblock … was addressed to problems of general law enforcement, namely deterring drug traffic and violence,” Chief Judge Judith W. Rogers wrote for the court. Referring to citizens’ rights against unlawful search and seizure, Rogers determined: “Such a justification is antithetical to the Fourth Amendment.”

[…]

Galberth [the appellant] contended on appeal that his rights were violated because the Supreme Court has held that police must have a specific reason to throw up roadblocks. Rogers and her fellows agreed.

District Councilman Phil Mendelson, D-at large, said the Galberth case was eerily similar to what the Fenty administration is now doing.

“You can’t be any more exact as to the facts. It’s practically the same intersection and the same purposes. And the court said it’s unconstitutional,” Mendelson said.

Mendelson has scheduled hearings for next week on human rights abuses by D.C.’s leaders. Roadblocks “are not an effective way to fight crime,” he said.

Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles, the architect of the checkpoint program, said, “I looked at that case. We do not feel those cases are dispositive.” As for the checkpoint program, Nickles said, “Thus far it has been a great success.”

Kristopher Baumann, chair of the D.C. police union, disagreed. “You simply have to drive a block out of your way to do whatever it is you wanted to do,” Baumann said of the checkpoints, which he called “deeply disturbing.”

AP:

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

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

The checkpoints come as police try to combat a spike in the number of homicides, which rose 7 percent in the city in 2007 after several years of decline.

Uh…haven’t Cathy Lanier and Adrian Fenty been Police Chief and Mayor, respectively, from January 2007 to today? I think I see a correlation here.

And, as I have noted before, guns are illegal in Washington, D.C.

Most of last weekend’s slayings occurred in the 5th Police District in the city’s northeast section, where authorities plan to set up the checkpoints. Already this year, the police district has had 22 killings – one more than in all of 2007.

“The reality is, this is a neighborhood that has been the scene of many violent crimes, and something had to be done,” D.C. police spokeswoman Traci Hughes said.

Because your department is too inept to police an area. Do the officers still have the mentality of “we don’t go down to those neighborhoods unless we get called”?

But the initiative has raised the ire of the ACLU, which plans to watch what happens with the checkpoints before deciding on any legal action.

Officers will stop motorists traveling through the main thoroughfare of Trinidad – a neighborhood of mostly tidy two-story brick rowhouses that includes Gallaudet University and is near the National Arboretum.

Police will ask motorists to show proof that they live in the area. If they do not have proof, drivers must explain whether they have a reason to be in the neighborhood, such as a doctor’s appointment or a church visit.

Police will only search cars if they observe the presence of guns or drugs, officials said. Anyone who does not cooperate will be arrested.

[…]

Responding to the threat of a legal challenge, interim D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles cited a similar case involving New York City police, who once stopped motorists in the Bronx at random hours, mostly in the evening, to curtail drive-by shootings, drugs and robberies. Neighborhood residents and commercial vehicles were allowed to pass, while others were turned away.

A federal appeals court ruled in 1996 that those police tactics were constitutional, saying that the checkpoints “were reasonably viewed as an effective mechanism” to reduce drive-by shootings.

In a Supreme Court case from 2000, however, justices struck down random roadblocks used in Indianapolis to screen people for illegal drugs, ruling that they were an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The high court’s majority concluded that law enforcement alone is not a good enough reason to stop innocent motorists.

Wow, nice to see the bloody D.C. Attorney General doesn’t know about Supreme Court precedents.

[…]

“It’s needed and it’s not needed,” said Matthew Simmons, 79, as he sat on the porch outside his rowhouse. Simmons said the checkpoints wouldn’t necessarily deter crime. He said a better solution would be to have more consistent police patrols.

What?! That’s crazy talk!

H/t: Matt “threat to democracy” Drudge

The Washington Post:

D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced a military-style checkpoint yesterday to stop cars this weekend in a Northeast Washington neighborhood inundated by gun violence, saying it will help keep criminals out of the area.

Starting on Saturday, 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.

The Neighborhood Safety Zone initiative is the latest crime-fighting attempt by Lanier and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, who have been under pressure from residents to stop a recent surge in violence. Last weekend was especially bloody, with seven slayings, including three in the Trinidad area.

But guns are illegal in D.C.! How is this possible?

Some sanity:

“I guess the plan is to hope criminals will not walk into neighborhoods,” said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large). “I also suppose the plan is to take the criminal’s word for it when he or she gives the police a reason for driving into a neighborhood.”

Isn’t there something in the United States Constitution about “freedom of assembly” and whatnot?:

Leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union said yesterday that they will be watching what happens closely and that legal action is likely.

“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.”

And then there’s the other stupidity that’s come out of her office:

One of Lanier’s plans, the Safe Homes initiative, has yet to get off the ground because of a community backlash. The plan, announced by Lanier and Fenty at a news conference in March, called for police to go door-to-door in crime-ridden areas and ask residents whether they could go inside and search for guns. Residents and some council members voiced concerns that homeowners would feel intimidated by police. Lanier backed off, but said she plans to move forward soon by having residents call police to set up appointments.

H/t: Matt “threat to democracy” Drudge

AP via WTOP: Newseum Set to Open in New High-Tech Home on April 11:

The Newseum is announcing an April 11 opening date for its new $450,000,000 home, allowing it to lure in tourists who will be in town for the cherry blossoms.

Admission will be free on opening day. After that, it will cost $20 for adults, making the Newseum the latest in a series of pricey new museums competing with the many free attractions in the capital.

Officials say they’re confident there is a market for the high-tech, interactive experience the Newseum promises to offer. It will have 15 theaters and 14 major galleries, as well as broadcast studios.

On the web: http://www.newseum.org/