June 19, 2008
Secret Reason for Trinidad Checkpoint?
Residents watch the police checkpoint in D.C.'s Trinidad neighborhood on Saturday, June 7, 2008. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana) |
We balked at the initial news that the Metropolitan Police Department planned to throw up barriers and checkpoints in certain D.C. neighborhoods experiencing excessive violent crime. Later, when we learned the details of the first case, the week-long checkpoint that was established in Trinidad, the MPD's plan appeared to be both constitutionally dubious and potentially not very effective. So it's with great interest that we read today's Washington Post editorial lambasting critics of the checkpoints for getting more upset about murky constitutional issues than about high rates of violent crime and murder.
There's a dispute over whether the operation violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. There is some merit to the claim that police were using the checkpoints for general law enforcement, which could render them unconstitutional. But city attorneys make a convincing argument that because the program's goal was the physical safety of roadways, it passes constitutional muster. Indeed, they liken the Trinidad stops to sobriety checkpoints, which have been upheld by the Supreme Court.Most of us who felt that the checkpoints bore a far too close resemblance to police state tactics would argue in return that all of us want an increased police presence in Trinidad that could ensure the physical safety of the neighborhood's roadways -- just not at the expense of hassling and turning away District residents without probable cause. Well via City Desk, it turns out Chief Cathy Lanier says she actually had a specific reason for putting up the Trinidad checkpoint. D.C. Watch has the recap of her testimony at a D.C. Council hearing on the matter.
Chief Lanier announced for the first time that the stated reasons for instituting a blockade of the Trinidad neighborhood were not the true reasons, or at least not the major reason, behind the cordon. There was another, more important, reason, she told the committee, but she could not reveal what that reason was. If the committee members knew what she knew, she was confident that they would agree with her actions, but she couldn’t tell them what she knew. She had, she said, specific information that there were specific individuals who were going to enter that neighborhood to commit a particular crime. Preventing that crime was the real reason for quarantining Trinidad. No lesser measures — tracking those specific individuals, warning the intended victims of the crime, etc. — would have sufficed to prevent the crime. Only a full-scale lock down of the neighborhood and lockout of other citizens was enough. But councilmembers would have to take her word for it, because she couldn’t tell them anything more.Of course, that's not at all the reasoning Lanier gave when the "Neighborhood Safety Zone" initiative was first announced.
If the Chief has specific knowledge of a serious crime that led her to judge that a checkpoint and neighborhood lockdown was her best bet to prevent it, she could have explained that from the beginning and saved herself a lot of grief. We certainly would have reacted less incredulously to such a proposal. Of course, Gary Imhoff and
Dorothy Brizill are deeply skeptical of Lanier's latest statements.
The first story was that it was a reaction to the violence in Trinidad over the weekend of May 31 and June 1; the second was that the administration had been planning the blockage for two months before that time. Now we have the third story, that the blockade was to thwart a particular planned crime; were the police aware of that planned crime more than two months ago? If you’ll buy this latest change in the administration’s story this late in the day, we’ll forward you some E-mails from Nigeria that will let you in on a scheme to get rich overnight.This is part of what today's Washington Post editorial is missing. Everyone is outraged over the murders happening in Ward 5. We all desperately want them to stop -- the notion that the community is only getting angry about the checkpoints seems to ignore the fact that we've been begging for more foot patrols and community policing strategies for a long time. We'll most certainly get behind innovative police tactics that could stem the violence.
But the MPD has a history of being reactive instead of proactive, and as initially presented to the public, the "Neighborhood Safety Zone" plan appeared to be the worst sort of reactive strategy. Violence goes up in some area of the city, so the police swoop in and start messing with your civil rights. If the plan had really been proactive -- to prevent a crime that the department had some previous knowledge of -- why didn't they say so? It's exactly the sort of police effort the community has been asking for, which makes suddenly hearing it from the Chief this late in the game come across an awful lot like lip service.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
I'm guessing that the Chief's/MPD's response to the question, "Well why didn't you just say so in the first place!" would be that if they had stated it, those planning to commit the crime would have then known they were being targeted and either planned for another weekend, scrapped their plans, or committed the crime elsewhere (or even targeted MPD officers?). There are a lot of holes in that response, but that's what I'm guessing they would say.
But if it is true--what sort of crime did MPD know was going to be committed that particular weekend, in that particular area, and could not have been stopped by any lesser measures, that they still can't talk about with anyone?
[ report this ]
I want to snark but can't find the words. If it turns out she's full of shit on this she should be canned.
[ report this ]
Let me get this straight: A high murder rate in that neighborhood is not good enough for the MPD to do something about it, but some other unnamed crime is?
[ report this ]
I wish we could can Fenty while we're at it. He appointed Lanier, after all.
[ report this ]
the "i can't tell you or i'll have to kill you" defense ain't gonna work here.
if there was really another reason tell us.
and better yet, don't lie to us in the first place. if there really was some secret reason to need to do this, just tell us "secret reason" in the first place, and let us wildly speculate (nuclear weapons, you found dick cheney's undisclosed location, there's gold in them thar hills). we're not children, and being treated as such is insulting.
there's a george bush comparison to be made here, but i'm just not creative or articulate enough to make it. someone help me out here...
[ report this ]
I'm sure the "planned" crime committed by individuals so organized that they plotted this out weeks in advance were surely deterred by a temporary police check on only one of dozens of ways to get in or out of their targeted neighborhood.
[ report this ]
Couldn't she have talked to the council about the matter in private/off record at least so that they could publicly back her? Surely Carol Schwartz wasn't about to go on a mass murder spree in Trinidad...
[ report this ]
I'm speechless.
To say she isn't ready for prime time is a serious understatement.
[ report this ]
There are rumors that the Morlocks were planning a major invasion from their subterranean lair. Obviously Lanier wouldn't be able to say this since that would confirm the existence of Morlocks. So she came up with various other reasons for the checkpoints (the possibility of saying that Saddam Hussein had hidden WMDs in Trinidad was discussed but, ultimately, rejected). MPD protected Trinidad from a major Morlock attack. We should be thanking them, not criticizing them.
[ report this ]
its classic homeland security obfuscation.
we needed to do it because people were in danger/
I can not tell you the details
REPEAT
[ report this ]
Maybe I'm being too generous but they can't possibly think that this reasoning would magically be accepted.. so there almost has to be a real reason behind it. Right?
[ report this ]
You have got to be kidding me. MPD needs to be FOIA'ed over this garbage. Washington Post, please do your job already.
[ report this ]
The checkpoints are a short-term solution to the violence; they won't do anything to address the underlying factors, such as terrible schools, unemployment, poverty and drugs, that cause people to drift towards crime and violence.
That being said, as a resident of the area I cannot say that I am particularly concerned with what you see as "constitutionally dubious" measure to stem recent waves of murders that have affected my neighborhood. I have seen foot patrols (and a horse patrol once) on my block during the day and at night prior to that latest wave (May 31st), and that did nothing to stop the murders.
If criminals funneling guns and drugs into my neighborhood are so concerned with having their Fourth Amendment rights violated by a traffic stop (what you call a "police state tactic"), what's preventing them from using other roadways into Trinidad? The police set up a traffic stop on Montello Ave NE. Did they set ones up on West Virginia Ave NE, or Mt. Olivet and Bladensburg Roads NE?
Better yet, why don't they simply park their cars and WALK into the neighborhood? The police have not been stopping pedestrians from entering into the neighborhood, have they? If, by chance, the police introduce foot patrols into the neighborhood, and one stops a suspicious character, and it turns out he was carrying a gun or drugs and was arrested, would you affirm his Fourth Amendment rights?
A "police state" response to the crimes in my neighborhood would be preventing anyone from entering or exiting the area at all. What the police have done is a legitimate tactic until a court of law declares this particular instance to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
[ report this ]
Whatever...I hope they revisit checkpoints, barriers, home to home sweeps. Enuff with the violence and idiotic murders. If getting barred from a neighborhood because you don't live their hurts your feelings oh well.
[ report this ]
"i know something you don't know. neener neener neener."
yay digression back to elementary school!
[ report this ]
If I were to venture a guess, I'm betting there was some sort of large-scale gang violence due to go down that weekend....
[ report this ]
"that we've been begging for more foot patrols", but wait, how are MPD's officers going to benefit from the A/C cooled cruisers ... oh right.
Just food for thought here; if the price of gas is so high, how much is DC's MPD spending on gas for patrol cars? Wouldn't it benefit the city and its taxpayers environmentally/economically/safety-wise if more police were to perform their beats on foot, bike, or (god forbid) electric segways? Seriously, has there been any concern pertaining to this?
[ report this ]
This "secret" crime had better be something extraordinary. But I have the feeling it will be something very ordinary, like one of the local "crews" said they were going to "get" somebody being released from prison. Or your basic DC witness elimination job.
[ report this ]
It isn't as easy as "just tell us already," then or now. If MPD is working above the board here, then they should be concerned about a) the informant's well-being, and b) a continued source of information.
I'm with nearnortheasterner on this one. Do we have to wait until a "North Capitol Hill" mom with a stroller is hit by stray fire before we admit the need for more than horses?
We have a sortof precedent (the NY checkpoints) that MPD is using to justify the Trinidad checkpoints. If challenged, the courts will make their decision. But in the interim, it would seem that the measures (or, at least, the attention it generated) aided in curbing the violence in that neighborhood -- a situation that begged for an immediate response.
MPD can't win here.
Murders equal charges of incompetence, worthlessness, etc.
But push the envelope and use a tactic that you and the city administration deem constitutional (but one that makes some squeamish), and you're just as damned.
[ report this ]
jaynuze, i totally agree that getting more foot patrols out there would be great - more community engagement, etc. however, i had a conversation with a very opinionated officer one night and his point was that in many neighborhoods its just dangerous to have one or two cops on foot rather than in a vehicle.
i know there are ways to make this better - it was just his take on the way things are right now.
[ report this ]
Isn't this the same chief who wants to knock on our doors and offer us “citizens” amnesty for turning in our guns?
[ report this ]
I'm really skeptical that this is an accurate readout of her comments in committee; and I'll wait for a more objective publication to report out before I decide.
It sounds to me like Lanier is alluding to the somewhat obscured reason for the checkpoints that was quietly given all along-- that the majority of the murders in Trinidad have been gang-related drive-by shootings, and thus a roadway checkpoint was seen to be an effective deterrent. This was alluded to in that recent NYT article on Trinidad.
Like everyone else, I would like a more thorough explanation from the Chief. But if that was the context, the reasoning is sound. If the shootings were primarily symptoms of drug gang turf battles executed by drive-by, then they were localized, not epidemic, crimes and the checkpoints very well may have been effective. (No facts have been cited to support the argument that because other murders were committed elsewhere that week, the crime must have simply been pushed out to other neighborhoods-- those shootings may have been committed anyways).
I'm willing to give the Chief the benefit of the doubt for the time being-- sometimes law enforcement work requires a little secrecy. But she better come up with a more thorough explanation soon, or at the very least before a closed session of the Committee.
[ report this ]
Cranky - Don't go committing your anti-morlock hatecrimes around here!
HATECRIME!
[ report this ]
Maybe you're right, we should wait to learn more. But it seems to me that she's naive or foolish at best based on some of her recent decisions. From what i can tell she's learning on the job and has no PR skills or experience. I wonder how long she'll last?
[ report this ]
It doesn't make sense. The recent rash of murders weren't reported as gang-related so checkpoints setup to curb gangland violence, as has been assumed, doesn't address the original issue and has the problem of further assuming the checkpoints time and place as coincidental.
Btw, considering all the positives--one being increased gas prices--are there convincing arguments against foot patrols other than being inefficient as first responders?
[ report this ]
For what it's worth, Mojotron had this to say last Friday:
By Mojotron[9] | 06/13/08 11:32AM
I think there's more to the Trinidad neighborhood checkpoint than the police are admitting to. There was an attempted break-in at my place Tuesday (that I found out about the next day from a neighbor- thanks DCPD!) and in talking to the cops, there's apparently been a mass release of low-level prisoners by the DC courts and, as a result, there's a mini crime-wave of burglaries/break-ins. This isn't to excuse the checkpoints (I think they're lazy, unconstitutional, and ultimately worthless) but this adds a little more context.
[ report this ]
Maybe it was just a means to put a rapid response team at a strategic corner.
It's possible that they were using a show of force to stop some sort of witness reprisal/etc.
Of course, this is not a solution to anything. Just another explanation for this ill-received one-shot tactic.
[ report this ]
JA,
If you think MPD is suffering bad PR now, wait until they are attacked for their insufficiency as first responders because there are too many foot/bike patrols and not enough car patrols!
[ report this ]
It's all a balancing test here. On one side, we have the state's interest in maintaining public safety, and on the other we have the individual's privacy interests (we have no constitutional right to unfettered travel.)
When it comes to determining which interest prevails, reasonable minds can disagree. Now it's just a question of where Marion Barry's mind is going to go on this.
[ report this ]
First responders don't prevent crime. But, Foot Patrols can. I think foot patrols can work best when tied to effective community policing. Then less frequent first response is needed.
[ report this ]
I suggest Predator drone patrols.
And I agree with 16th Street Line that Brizil and Imhoff are hardly disinterested observers. Each edition of the Mail reads like a Mad Libs piece:
Mayor Fenty sucks (superlative) (adjective) (noun). Everything he does is (superlative) (adjective) (noun). We can't believe his latest outrage: (noun) (verb) (noun). This is (adverb).
Both Gary's intro and the submissions themselves have become copy-and-paste jobs - same complaints, same people, same Fenty sucks attitude.
[ report this ]
@Bethesdaist: Can you FOIA the D.C. govt?
[ report this ]
Our Constitutional rights are more important than any mini-or-not crime wave. "Give me liberty or give me death." (Patrick Henry). This city is getting better by the day. Now is no time to cry for the police to take away our liberties in the name of safety. Your willing to give up what will not be given back out of fear. If you want to stop crime in Trinidad, go volunteer at the schools and rec centers, employ ex-offenders, join an orange hat patrol. Do anything but give up my rights because you're afraid.
[ report this ]
Cranky - Don't go committing your anti-morlock hatecrimes around here!
Monkey - your pro-C.H.U.D bias is showing.
Your naughty bits are also showing.
Actually the violence in Trinidad can be attributed to Death Eater activity and the right sideview mirror on Marion Berry's MERC is actually a horcrux (recall the B2 bus incident). The more you know.
[ report this ]
Wanna fix the DC government? Start taxing the churches, get rid of those leeches and enablers.
[ report this ]
brilliant, boondoggle.
[ report this ]
What, were the Sopranos gonna make a move on Trinidad?
Wow, DC always wants to overthrow whoever the police chief is at the slightest provocation. It's DC....be thankful someone actually took the job.