Are your papers in order?
2008-06-05From 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 checkpoint will stop vehicles approaching the 1400 block of Montello Avenue NE, a section of the Trinidad neighborhood that has been plagued with homicides and other violence. Police will search cars if they suspect the presence of guns or drugs, and will arrest people who do not cooperate, under a charge of failure to obey a police officer, officials said.
(emphasis mine)
Ahem. I quoth:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I thought that this was supposed to be a law that we were all supposed to follow or something.
…but remember… they hate us because we’re free…
I agree with you on this one, for much the same reason I disagreed with you on your June 7th blog. The 4th Amendment does not prohibit warrantless search if they are reasonable. This one clearly goes over that line.
Ah, but who gets to define reasonable? Why isn’t this reasonable? It’s a high crime rate area, so can’t we assume most of the folks traveling through are criminals and subject to searches?
If the DC police “suspect the presence of guns or drugs” who are we to question them?
In our system, law enforcement makes the call on the street, and those decisions are reviewed by the Courts. In the criminal system, the remedy for an unconstitutional search is exclusion of the evidence obtained, and all it’s fruits. Civilly, there are other remedies available to people who’s Constitutional Rights have been violated “under color of law.” Courts have generally sided with police on this, the violation has to be pretty flagrant and intentional for the civil stuff to kick in. Not defending that, only reporting it.
Skeptic,
Yeah, I know how it works, and I know how the courts have ruled.
I’m just saying that they are *wrong*.