6.04.2008

Well, We've Finally Lost the City

It's done. Over. We've gotten to the point where we can't drive through certain areas of the city in the name of crime prevention.

No, really. The police are going to require identification to drive through high crime areas in Ward 5. If you don't have a good enough reason to be there, you're not allowed in that part of the city. This is a disgrace. And it's so obviously unconstitutional that it blows the mind.

Just another demerit on the tarnished resumes of Interim Attorney General Peter Nickles and City Joke Cathy Lanier.

Enjoy your fascist police state, readers.

27 comments:

  1. I'm visiting my friend Laqueesha. Works every time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJune 04, 2008

    ihre papiere bitte!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This sounds like a perfect time to build a new multi-million dollar stadium for our city's ping-pong ball team.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousJune 04, 2008

    I'm sure the residents like this idea based on their last few weeks. Just because you are in posh Ward 1 doesn't mean that you can get high and mighty about the going ons of Ward 5. 22 people killed year-to-date...I think that warrants some pretty damn extreme measures.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousJune 04, 2008

    anonymous # 3: yes, like stepped-up foot patrols and increased police presence...not a full out "let me see your papers" police state!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am in posh Ward 3, not posh Ward 1.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The story says these sorts of measures have been approved by "federal courts."

    That's a shame. Didn't know I needed police permission to drive down a city street.

    But hey, people are committing murders, so we've got to "do something."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chief Lanier's BIG CHOPPERSJune 04, 2008

    You think things are bad right now you transplants? Trust me you have not seen anything yet. This city has the potential to make the past few months look like Disneyland.

    To the guy who made that Laqueesha comment. I bet you would not say that shit over in SE or NE you douchebag. Anytime of the day. You would not say that shit on the streets.

    At least Laqueesha is living here in the city she was born in unlike you.

    You had to move far away from where you were born to make a good life for yourself because you did not have shit going for you where you are from. You asshole transplant.

    Next time you see me appear from out of Chief Lanier's mouth during her next press conference or television interview...

    Remember what I said here and do us all a favor and move yourself back to where ever in the hell you came from.

    We will all be better off by you doing so. Yes including Laqueesha.

    ReplyDelete
  9. They likely think it's constitutional for the same reason DUI checkpoints are. It's not an unreasonable "search" because it's being applied to everyone indiscriminately.

    If you want to argue it you could argue that it's in the same place every time, subjecting some residents to a "plain view" search multiple times a day while residents in other neighborhoods escape the same review.

    The other argument, under the 14th Amendment, would be that the practice is facially nondiscriminatory (i.e. - the checkpoint is based on the geography of criminal activity) but results in racially disparate state action. The standard for that argument is: Is the discrimination or disparate effect of a facially nondiscriminatory law [or other state action] so egregious as to offend common precepts of decency? That might be your big winner.

    In fact, now I want to argue it. I'm D.C. barred and cheap. Who in Ward 5 wants to give me a call?

    ReplyDelete
  10. J-Red,

    But with DUI checkpoints, you're allowed to go on your way if you haven't broken any laws. Here, that's not the case. People legally driving may not be able to go through these neighborhoods.

    Wouldn't this violate freedom of movement?

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is no "right to travel" WITHIN a state. States are only prohibited from passing laws or performing actions which have the result of preventing a person from freely moving across state lines.

    Within a state (or D.C.) the police may restrict access to any area (including one's own home - structural safety, for example)if they have a reasonable basis for doing so. That's why they can close streets for accidents or water main breaks and the like. If they reasonably believe that denying non-residents access to Trinidad will prevent murders, that's going to be good enough for the courts.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here are some cases on intrastate travel that I found:

    Intrastate travel is protected to the extent that the classification fails to meet equal protection standards in some respect. Compare Hadnott v. Amos, 320 F. Supp. 107 (M.D. Ala. 1970) (three-judge court), aff'd. per curiam, 405 U.S. 1035 (1972), with Arlington County Bd. v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977).

    It's just not a constitutionally protected right within a state, though it is in England. Of course, the D.C. Constitution/Charter may provide additional rights of which I'm unaware.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The D.C. Constitution of 1987 is silent on the right to travel and does not provide any meaningful additional protection against search and seizure or discriminatory treatment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Blargh. So, what you're saying, is that I shouldn't drive into Trinidad to get myself arrested and have a court case named after me.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well, Rosa Parks got herself arrested on purpose. So did Homer Plessy of Plessy v. Ferguson fame.

    I guess it's all about your willingness to take a misdemeanor and your ability to find an attorney with a couple hundred hours to donate.

    To be clear about something I said earlier, the checkpoint is 100% unconstitutional. It's just that the Supreme Court decided in the DUI checkpoint context that some Fourth Amendment violations are okay in the name of public safety.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So you need to allege impermissibly unconstitutional, which isn't usually how it works.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ted's Two TwistsJune 05, 2008

    Rusty you just got owned by Cochran.

    Also check this shit out. The new staff at the Tax Revenue Office

    http://dcotr.nbdinz.com/staff/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. AnonymousJune 05, 2008

    Please Rusty, like you even own a car that would allow you to attempt any of this.

    ReplyDelete
  19. redraiderdcJune 05, 2008

    Well I for one welcome our new police state overlords in Ward 5.

    ReplyDelete
  20. AnonymousJune 05, 2008

    Rusty's lame ass Jeep would get shelled the moment he got within 4 blocks of the check point.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rusty's MomJune 05, 2008

    Rusty, why would you even be driving into Ward 5? Ever been there? Shut it please. People are getting slain, the cops are trying to do something about it. You just pin your douche-diaper, k?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dear Chief Lanier's BIG CHOPPERS:

    I was born in DC. Do I have to leave, too?

    ReplyDelete
  23. So, police states are OK, as long as they don't affect you, my little fascist friends? "But it's for their own good!".

    Wait til Georgetown has a couple murders....like to see you try to buy some jeans at Urban Outfitters then.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Chief Lanier's BIG CHOPPERSJune 05, 2008

    No.

    You can stay.

    What DC hood do you rep?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Shut your necksJune 06, 2008

    My guess is his "hood" is Tenley-douche, or George-douche.

    Crive the beloeved douchebags

    ReplyDelete
  26. AnonymousJune 08, 2008

    I love to see Rusty get his ass kicked by a poster that is smarter than him - which is just about everyone on this blog.

    Rusty, shut your whiny liberal ass up, or move the fuck to Denmark.

    Holy shit, you are a fucking idiot.

    ReplyDelete