Jun 06, 2008 03:19AM GMTJune 06, 2008 03:19:36
Posted by lady bear

Question Stats

22 answers
29 comments
raves +5  
Share This Question

Do you agree that the DC police should be setting up military like checkpoints to get into suburbs?

DC Police Set up Military style Checkpoints for getting into suburbs
D.C. Police to Check Drivers In Violence-Plagued Trinidad

By Allison Klein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 5, 2008; A01



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 Neighborhood Safety Zone initiative is the latest crime-fighting attempt by Lanier and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, who have been under pressure from residents to stop a recent surge in violence. Last weekend was especially bloody, with seven slayings, including three in the Trinidad area.

"In certain areas, we need to go beyond the normal methods of policing," Fenty (D) said at a news conference announcing the action. "We're going to go into an area and completely shut it down to prevent shootings and the sale of drugs."

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.

The enforcement will take place at random hours and last for at least five days in Trinidad, with the option of extending it five more days. Checkpoints could be set up in other neighborhoods if they are requested by patrol commanders and approved by Lanier.

The strategy, patterned after a similar effort conducted years ago in New York, is not airtight. There are many ways to get in and out of Trinidad, not just on the one-way Montello Avenue. And pedestrians will not be stopped, which is something critics say might render the program ineffective.

"I guess the plan is to hope criminals will not walk into neighborhoods," said D.C. Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large). "I also suppose the plan is to take the criminal's word for it when he or she gives the police a reason for driving into a neighborhood."

Since taking over as chief in December 2006, Lanier has struggled with the issue of violent crime. She has added patrols, revived a unit specializing in getting guns off the streets and changed commanders in six of the city's seven patrol districts. Last weekend, officers were close enough in one case that they heard the barrage of gunfire coming from a triple homicide on Holbrook Street in Trinidad.

The program is aimed at the city's most troubled areas. The 5th Police District, which includes Trinidad, has had 22 killings this year, one more than all of last year. Since April 1, the Trinidad neighborhood has had seven homicides, 16 robberies and 20 assaults with dangerous weapons, according to police data. In many cases in Trinidad and across the city, gunshots are fired from passing cars, victims are found in cars or cars are used to make fast getaways.

"We have to try to take away the things that are facilitating the ability to commit crime," Lanier said.

Leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union said yesterday that they will be watching what happens closely and that legal action is likely.

"My reaction is, welcome to Baghdad, D.C.," said Arthur Spitzer, legal director for the ACLU's Washington office. "I mean, this is craziness. In this country, you don't have to show identification or explain to the police why you want to travel down a public street."

Interim Attorney General Peter J. Nickles said that his office reviewed the initiative and that similar efforts had survived court tests.

"I don't anticipate us being sued," Nickles said. "But if you do want to sue us, the courts are open."

U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor said that D.C. officials consulted his office about their plans and that prosecutors suggested some changes to try to ensure that any arrests would hold up in court. "We applaud the District's efforts to make neighborhoods safer," Taylor said. "Whatever we do has to be consistent with the Constitution."

New York police set up a nearly identical checkpoint in 1992 in a neighborhood of the Bronx that was plagued by drug dealing and drive-by shootings. Police ran the Watson Avenue Special Operation on a random basis, mostly in evening hours. Officers stopped drivers, but not pedestrians, coming into the area, to confirm that they had a legitimate reason to be there.

A federal appeals court upheld the legality of the New York effort, saying in a 1996 ruling that it "served an important public concern" and was "reasonably viewed as an effective mechanism to deter crime in the barricaded area."

D.C. police have used various forms of checkpoints for years. In 1988, for example, they blocked streets and searched courtyards in a pair of apartment complexes in Northeast Washington in a bid to drive out drug dealers. That move came during the crack cocaine epidemic, in a year when the city recorded 372 homicides. Last year, the city had 181 killings.

Former D.C. police chief Isaac Fulwood Jr., who led the department from 1989 until 1992, said he liked using checkpoints because his officers were able to make arrests and gather intelligence.

"They are effective. You recover stolen cars and firearms," Fulwood said. "You've got to have a lot of them if you're going to have them. You need to move as the criminal element shifts."

Some residents expressed support for the plan yesterday, saying they are willing to submit to the checks if it makes the neighborhood safer. "We can't endure any more homicides," said neighborhood activist India Henderson.

But others said they were disappointed police have not developed relationships that would allow them to gather information and find criminals without resorting to the stepped-up tactics.

"I knew eventually we'd be a police state," said Wilhelmina Lawson, who has lived in the neighborhood for 20 years. "They don't talk to us, they're not community minded."

One of Lanier's plans, the Safe Homes initiative, has yet to get off the ground because of a community backlash. The plan, announced by Lanier and Fenty at a news conference in March, called for police to go door-to-door in crime-ridden areas and ask residents whether they could go inside and search for guns. Residents and some council members voiced concerns that homeowners would feel intimidated by police. Lanier backed off, but said she plans to move forward soon by having residents call police to set up appointments.

Another plan, to arm hundreds of patrol officers with semiautomatic rifles, starting this summer, also got mixed reviews from residents.

Kristopher Baumann, head of the D.C. police lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, said he was concerned about public perception of the checkpoints and the potential that it could lead to more citizen complaints. He questioned Lanier's overall approach, saying, "There is no strategy and no mid-term and long-term planning.

"That's the biggest disappointment of Chief Lanier's tenure," Baumann said. "One thing we were excited about and optimistic about was, for once, we'd have strategies to combat crime and not just be reactive. But we haven't seen it. It's been a year and a half."

Council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D-Ward 5), who represents Trinidad and other parts of Northeast Washington, said he had informal discussions with Lanier in which she had mentioned the possibility of the checkpoint announced yesterday, but he got little notice before the news conference. Civil liberties are always a concern, said Thomas, who maintained that residents are so concerned about violence that they will be willing to give the latest program a try.

"I think the general consensus is that we have to do something because people live in fear," he said. "What would you rather have?" he asked. "A positive pattern of [police] checking things . . . or these folks who come into the community and wreak havoc?"

Staff writers Marcia Davis, Dan Keating, David Nakamura, Mary Beth Sheridan and Del Quentin Wilber and staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.
Add Image Add Video
resize

* these fields are required to answer

I agree to the SodaHead TOS and Privacy

Loading Loading...
Top Comment
raves +5   by meKrystle (BYOB RSVP STFU)

Answered No

We should be allowed to travel freely within our own country.
view thread
Sort By: Raves | Date Comments
  • raves +1   [-] by Michael

    Answered No

    They're testing out the idea there before they move it to the larger scale. This is not what America stands for or is about. Every right we allow them to steal from us is another step toward no rights at all.
  • raves +2   [-] by brozak

    Answered No

    Your Papers Comrade.

    papers comrade
  • raves +2   [-] by lady bear
    You may be hearing that sooner than you want to with the way things are going. Not that any of us would want to hear it. It just seems that everything is spiraling out of control at warp speed.
  • raves +2   [-] by mrorganic77

    Answered No

    to the Police State and there mentality to control the people with more police and military. Arm the people not the police and those posing as government. In the USA the main duty of government and police is to protect the freedom and liberties of We the people not to control them.
  • raves +2   [-] by lady bear
    Looks like the have totally forgotten that. Remember Homeland Security has been training them That can only mean that it has been drilled into their heads that we are all terrorists. Shoot, fight, hit, ask questions after.
  • raves +3   [-] by Republic of Honor

    Answered No

    Pass out the guns and ammo, support citizens to carry weapons and defend themselves!
  • raves +4   [-] by chuck HUSSEIN No McCain -Palin

    Answered No

    SOUNDS FAMILIAR. POLICE STATE

    sounds familiar police !
  • raves +2   [-] by concerned

    Answered No

    but with mccain president ...that is just what america would be like check points everywhere .....all that militarty has in out of touch ...wanting obama to speak with a genral ...like the genral is in charge or something ....commsndor and cheif ,...is in charge ....to much drama
  • raves     [-] by akgold
    So you don't think the C-in-C should talk to the people on the ground? Should he stay in the command post full time to keep awareness of the situation?
  • raves     [-] by concerned
    only to get a report on the orders that were given to him ..and or to give new orders ..basic on his report ...
  • raves +3   [-] by Animox

    Answered No

    "We have to try to take away the things that are facilitating the ability to commit crime," Should we chop off everyones hands so they wont shoplift? How could any court find this constitutional? Why not put everyone in nice padded cells so they can't hurt anyone including themselves? "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
  • raves +3   [-] by Patrick

    Answered No

    Americans are supposed to be free, free to go where they want to and free to do what they want to if it is legal. It is not up to some city or county or State or Federal agency or minion to decide what is best for a community. This is why we need more civilian militias to take their right of citizen arrest to heart and the courts to back them. Let us clean up our streets. Let us get rid of the gangs. We need community leaders to organize community militias useing the existing laws to protect their homes and families. The laws are their use them.
  • raves +4   [-] by lady bear
    One problem with DC is they have a gun ban So you have unarmed citizens surrounded by the gangs who are armed quite well and the drug dealers who I am sure are also armed heavily. How is the regular joe supposed to protect himself or go up against these thugs to take their streets back? This is why I think the Supreme Court better vote that the ban is unconsitutional. Give these people what they need to reclaim their towns. Have the police make a greater presence in the area not cutting it off. have the police create a group that mainly goes to get to know the people there so there can be a trust and the people will feel safe reporting a problem. The key though GIVE THE REGULAR JOE"S BACK THEIR GUNS>
  • raves +2   [-] by WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    Agree with your statement above, lady. Anytime you take a Citizens rights away, all hell seems to break loose. Which is, I believe, the reason rights are "revoked" on a daily basis, thus giving government popular cause to revoke still more. Snowballs from there.
  • raves +2   [-] by lady bear
    Yep, though from the sentiment of those I have chatted with seems that the more that they see things like this and our rights getting disregarded the angrier they are getting. Maybe this is what it is going to take for the people to finally say ENough! and take a stand whether it be a peaceful stand or an armed revolution. There is only so far you can push people. With the illegal immigration, the wars, the cities taking away gun owner rights, the first amendment being destroyed. the list goes on. People are actually beginning to get fed up and to speak out. Will start with the petitions of redress that will be being delivered here in the next month or this one can't remember I believe it is the 17th just don't remember if that is June or July. If they don't pay attention to the people after receiving them things will be picking up. As the one song use to say "the times they are a changin"
  • raves +2   [-] by Icedragon1969

    Answered No

    Zig Heil!
  • raves +1   [-] by matton

    Answered Undecided

    employment and respect is what the citizens of Washington d.c. need

    it amazed me my first trip to the white house.

    we were off placed in the hood in 1973 the mere fact that is still a hood

    with great wealth and slut bums is fascinating to me .

    i found all that d.c. had to offer in that time of the Nixon presidency.

    including the fact that the holiday inn was full but my dad got a spot ????? hmmm

    in the then over pressed Watergate hotel??.

    he quickly found us a new opining at the holiday inn.

    even with family players who choose honesty they are taxed by the fear

    that they can not be trusted hence.. Scott McClellan writes in a new memoir that President Bush relied on an aggressive "political propaganda campaign" ...

    the police need our permission first when they forget that we rule them we forget them!
  • raves     [-] by Art

    Answered Yes

    Yes
  • raves +4   [-] by SparkleyFlowers (LMAO WTF FTW)

    Answered No

    Holy... WTF?! Next thing you know they will be assigning jobs and popping up on our wall mounted TV screens telling us it's time to exercise!

    Boo!

    We seriously need more Libertarians in office.
  • raves +5   [-] by meKrystle (BYOB RSVP STFU)

    Answered No

    We should be allowed to travel freely within our own country.
  • raves +3   [-] by Ihr Hase

    Answered No

    But that can't happen here, tyranny cannot come to the US... it is for our own protection if they do it, because americans cannot be trusted with their own defence and security...

    Maybe, just maybe, people might see that the end of liberty is on the horizon...
  • raves +2   [-] by lady bear
    "U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor said that D.C. officials consulted his office about their plans and that prosecutors suggested some changes to try to ensure that any arrests would hold up in court. "We applaud the District's efforts to make neighborhoods safer," Taylor said. "Whatever we do has to be consistent with the Constitution.""

    What about this do they feel is Constitutional? Has the 2nd ammendment been shot down with out my knowing it. referring to the search of the homes for weapons. I don't care how they want to set up the searches they will NOT get into my home. They have no justification for it.
  • raves +2   [-] by Ihr Hase
    Yeah well it is blatantly apparent that the constitution means nothing to most people in this country...

    It is almost at the point where I do not think many of my fellow Americans deserve the Constitution....
  • raves +2   [-] by WannaBeRSC the Contrarian SOB
    I deal with that sentiment on a daily basis. Disturbing to say the least.
  • raves +4   [-] by gcbrd1

    Answered No

    Hitler did the same thing, if I'm not mistaken..
  • raves +2   [-] by DrTim

    Answered Undecided

    What are the "Alternatives"??
  • raves +3   [-] by lady bear
    Try making more of a presence in those neighborhoods. As one of the residents said try to make the police available to get to know the residents so they can become an ally and work together. Blocking people from coming in is not in my vision of America. One thing they could do is lift the damn ban on gun posession so that people can protect themselves and the criminals will begin to wonder who is armed and who isn't. It has been proven that when other areas have had gun bans crime rate went up. Once they lifted the ban most major crimes went down dramatically. This is just one more step closer to martial law.
  • raves +2   [-] by Animox
    I was thinking the same thing, creating check points and trying to barricade areas is not going to solve the crime problem. Crime is about motive and opportunity. Th