Martial Law in DC?

[acroyear]

Directive Details Trinidad Checks - washingtonpost.com:

Directive Details Trinidad Checks
Questions Raised On Effectiveness, Legality of Stops

By Allison Klein and Nikita Stewart
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 6, 2008; Page B01

When D.C. police begin stopping cars at a "checkpoint" this weekend in the Trinidad neighborhood, they will record all license plate numbers, verify residents' addresses and ask others for phone numbers of those they are visiting, according to a directive issued by Chief Cathy L. Lanier.

Lanier, who has been working on the "neighborhood safety zone" program for two months, said the checkpoints can expand to any neighborhood in response to violent crime. Police said it is a tool they plan to use to increase visibility, make arrests and gather intelligence.

Lanier's directive also says that anyone who does not give a reason for entering a designated safety zone may be turned away, said law enforcement sources who declined to speak on the record because they were not authorized to release the directive. "Legitimate" purposes to be in the area include going to a doctor, church or community event or visiting friends or relatives, officials said. Individuals can show a flier for an event to gain entrance, for example.
ad_icon

Tomorrow's checkpoint will be in the 1400 block of Montello Avenue NE.

Critics have questioned the program's effectiveness and lawfulness, and some police officers have quietly expressed reservations about conducting the stops.

American Civil Liberties Union leaders said they will observe the checkpoint Saturday and talk to motorists. Johnny Barnes, executive director of the ACLU's Washington office, said he will be there with an eye toward possible legal action.

"They seem so willing to cast aside cherished constitutional rights for quick fixes and lazy law enforcement," Barnes said.

But Lanier said the plan has passed muster with other top law enforcement officials in the District -- it was vetted by the U.S. attorney's office, and Interim Attorney General Peter J. Nickles said his office also approved the program.

Right, 'cause the Bush Administration is the obvious place to turn to when you're unsure of the Constitutionality of an action...

Comments

[wilhelmina-d.livejournal.com]

This is fricking scary. When I heard about it I expected uproar and rioting in protest, but there's been hardly a murmur. Himself thought I was wildly exaggerating when I told him about this. The only thing that saved us from an argument is that the news had the story two minutes after I told him. I can't believe we're allowing this not only in our country but in our capitol city no less.

Here is what I don't understand

[ladylyonesse.livejournal.com]

Our law student intern -- who presumably in his third year has now taken constitutional law? -- argues that these stops are no different than sobriety checkpoints. For myself, I find *both* practices to impinge on civil liberties in the name of dubious "safety". (Which isn't to say that I'm not violently opposed to folks drinking and driving, because I absolutely am; it's more that I don't fund the practice of checkpoints as being particularly preventative of the issue they're meant to address.)

The other sentiment I'm hearing when I am incredulous aloud about this practice, is that people are "making mountains out of molehills", and that residents of that area are in daily danger of their lives. I fail to see what these checkpoints accomplish towards improving that safety, however; much as I fail to see how the TSA functions as anything other than a hindrance to travel for "normal" individuals.

[amalphiea.livejournal.com]

That's just creepy.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

"said the checkpoints can expand to any neighborhood"

coming soon, to a neighborhood near you.

[uncle-possum.livejournal.com]

Let me see--

The police can stop anybody, and probably will stop everybody, based on their driving legally? And the policy can decide based on fairly vague criteria, whether or not anybody stopped can be prevented from continuing into the designated area? And this appears to be constitutional? And hardly anybody is complaining? And the article, at least, does not list "living there" as a legit reason?

Will they catch some crooks? yes. Would they also catch crooks if they just cordoned off an entire neighborhood, and then searched all the buildings in it? Yes. And this is constitional how?

Um, isn't the US Attorney's office and the AG the folks who decided that waterboarding wasn't "torture" and, in general, as long as there was no permanent damage, it wasn't torture?

[eiredrake.livejournal.com]

At least they're not using Blackwater to do it yet.

and gather intelligence.

Oh, you mean like how the NYPD was invading people's privacy, intercepting calls without warrants and infiltrating left leaning groups to gather intelligence?