Go Home Already: Shouts and Murmurs
Man Stops Traffic at 17th and K to Demand $200 Million
Morning Roundup: Goodbye, Abe Edition
Judge Throws Out WTU Suit Over Teacher Layoffs
Vegetate to Close at the End of the Month
The U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. on Thursday denied the District's petition to re-hear its case challenging the constitutionality of the police checkpoint program used in Trinidad in 2008.
The controversial "Neighborhood Safety Zone" checkpoints adopted by D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier were first ruled unconstitutional by a three-judge panel on July 10, and this time, a total of seven out of eight judges voted not to grant the District's petition to re-hear the case en banc. Their decision (you can download the order here) therefore reaffirms the court's earlier ruling.
This leaves the District with but one remaining appeal: the U.S. Supreme Court. City Desk quotes D.C. AG Peter Nickles as saying he'll have to "look at our options including a Supreme Court request."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
What? Nickles wants to spend millions in DC $$ to defend a foolish law that is obviously unconstitutional? I am shocked, shocked!!
Fight the good fight, Nickles! I won't be satisfied until you appeal this case to the World Court at the Hague. Those millions of taxpayer dollars won't waste themselves.
I agree. There is advocacy, and then there is stupidity. Good advocacy requires you to tell your client when it is not worthwhile pursuing the matter.
But this is DC!!! We can do whatever we want!!! It's just not fair!!!
How are these checkpoints illegal but the checkpoints that stop cars from driving onto a block for a block party that only lets residents drive in legal? This ruling is neither based in current practice nor on the constitution.
what about all the Maryland checkpoints I drove through? Were they all unconstitutional? No, once again these judges are incorrect and their repeated shouting that they're right and all other jurisdictions are wrong is just petty whining on the part of the judges.
It's a slippery slope. First you allow the police to arbitrarily setup roadblocks, lockdown neighborhoods, and demand ID without probably cause. Before you know it, they're taunting the town alcoholics with bottles of whisky while shooting at their feet and shouting, "Dance, Rummy! Dance!" Between that and the Council committing seppuku, DC's turning into quite the entertainment destination. Take that, Front Royal!
In all seriousness, nothing about the roadblocks was arbitrary.
However, the police set up roadblocks for a parade about 3 weeks ago and demanded ID to get into the blocks that were affected. Is the suggestion that it's unconstitutional to hold a parade in a residential neighborhood and that cars now have free rein to drive anywhere in the city with impunity and all pedestrians must vacate the streets because the police can't close off a block for a parade? You can see how utterly wrong the judges' decision is when presented with all the ways police create checkpoints that require an ID to enter. It's just a bad judiciary decision.
thank goodness...trying to stop drug dealing and murder was getting tiresome.
Pooping on the Constitution is definitely a small price to pay for an ineffective but popular panacea. Just ask Ray-Ray and Antwayne as they drive-by on their bikes and shoot at you. Or even Mr. Wheelchair Shotgun Dude. Or even our semi-bulleproof friends in Clay Terrace. Nothing like a bunch of bright police lights to make you go out for a three-piece-and-biscuit while you put your hit off for a couple of hours.
sugarsmax: do you live in trinidad? i do, and trust me, stopping automobile traffic from coming into the neighborhood is not going to cause crime in the area to go to zero. there are other problems that need to be addressed.
Yeah, now MPD can concentrate on investigating crime in Trinidad: http://frozentropics.blogspot.com/2009/08/cap-city-diner-robbery.html
What would Peter Nickles possibility know about the law. That is asking too much.
Is Orly Taitz, Esq. available as co-counsel?