DCist: Injunction Against MPD Checkpoints Denied

MahoganyShip

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 19:12:40 -0500

Mobile merchants of violence? I don't want to diss up on my main holmes here, but isn't that waxing a little poetic for a district court ruling? How about ambulatory purveyors of gunshot wounds? Transportational bestowers of bloodshed? People who do drive by's?

ledroitist

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:49:48 -0500

Furthermore, the issue of evidence admissibility is probably irrelevant and will not be decided in this case anyway. Indeed. Courts tend to rule as narrowly as possible--they don't go out fishing for additional issues to adjudicate. Until there's a plaintiff who gets brought up on charges using evidence obtained by one of these checkpoints, it seems to me no one has standing on the admissibility issue.

Stanton Park

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:47:37 -0500

D.C. Wire quotes the head of the police union questioning why Judge Leon didn't address whether evidence discovered during these searches would be upheld in court.A perfect example of the blind leading the blind. Apparently neither the union spokesperson nor the reporter have any clue what happened. The judge denied a request for a preliminary injunction. This means that the roadblocks can continue until a decision is made in the case. It would be inappropriate for the judge to make conclusions about the case. Furthermore, the issue of evidence admissibility is probably irrelevant and will not be decided in this case anyway.To get a preliminary injunction, the plaintiff must prove that failure to issue the injunction will (1) result in irreversable harm and (2) the plaintiff has a case that could be decided in its favor. The second part here usually easy, but the first part is more difficult. Denial of the preliminary injunction should not prejudice the final decision in the case, although it is possible that the judge has indicated the likely outcome with the mobile merchants of violence comment.

Deep

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:30:27 -0500

This can all be solved by just looking for really bad evil looking people who are smoking crack while driving a motor vehicle with possibly kids in the trunk. If they spent more of their time focusing on things like that perhaps they can spend more time at Dunkin Doughnut drinking iced coffees and wonderfully sprinkled powdered doughnuts, but watch out for that white powder. They may mistake it for ANTHRAX and shut down the place for suspicious chemicals.

majapa

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:24:17 -0500

The issue I have is that no one ever came out - ex post facto or at the initial announcement - to say exactly what type of crime they were trying to address. I don't think it's a futile mission for the MPD, but like the WMATA random searches, I want a truly justifiable reason for this to be carried out, rather than vague references to violence and terrorists.

IMGoph

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:22:47 -0500

is he sure he didn't mean mobile merchants of venice? 'cause i swear i saw a bunch of guys dressed up as the bard threatening people with all kinds of bodily harm in trinidad last week.

wonderwazz

Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:21:28 -0500

mobile merchants of violence = brilliant!