If It's Good Enough for Baghdad

Here's an innovative new anti-crime strategy:

Can you say Police State? The Examiner has the scoop on a controversial new program announced today that would create so-called "Neighborhood Safety Zones" which would serve to partially seal off certain parts of the city. D.C. Police would set-up checkpoints in targeted areas, demand to see ID and refuse admittance to people who don't live there, work there or have a “legitimate reason” to be there. Wow. Just, wow.

Megan McArdle does not approve. This is, as best I can tell, a modified version of the security plan General David Petraeus successfully implemented in Baghdad, except I guess Chief Lanier is going to do without building things like the "endless line of concrete blast walls" that separate Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods.

So I say, look on the bright side!

Comments

How is this remotely legal?

Posted by mpowell | June 4, 2008 3:01 PM

I used to vacation in West Palm Beach every winter for several years running. I had relatives living there and it was a grand time. The first time they took me to a members-only beach I observed police seemingly pulling cars over randomly, talking for awhile and off they'd drive. I was informed everyone that looked "suspicious" or "not from here" got that treatment. Kept out the riff-raff was the logic. I thought "Man, what a great idea!" I did notice things seemed peaceful, and damned if there wasn't less riff-raff under foot. It worker as far as I could tell. Yay!! I wanted that in my town, like right now. Of course here 20 years later Bush is working on just such a program on a nationwide basis. He must've vacationed in West Palm, too!

Posted by steve duncan | June 4, 2008 3:04 PM

And by "certain parts of the city" they presumably mean Georgetown.

Posted by Matt S. | June 4, 2008 3:05 PM

I cannot see how this is in anyway constitutional. This is in effect undeclared martial law, without bothering to address, who is the final arbitrator of what constitutes a sufficient reason to pass through the zone? What are the penalties for lying to get into the zone? Are the penalties increased if caught committing a crime in the zone?

There would seem to be far more effective ways of combating crime in an area like actually combating crime. If the argument for gun-owners is that a ban on guns only takes the guns out of the hands law-abiding citizens, then I would suspect that a person intent on committing a crime in one of the safety zones could probably come up with a lie sufficient to make the checkpoints utterly useless. Furthermore, if pedestrians will not be stopped, what is keeping dedicated criminals from parking around the corner and walking through the checkpoints? (other than DC's lack of parking.)

Just the thought of this combined with the irrational fear of immigrants that this nation is starting to develop gives me nightmares.

Posted by Gotta Ask Why | June 4, 2008 3:10 PM

Welcome to Soviet America.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | June 4, 2008 3:13 PM

This was tried in New York some, I believe. The fact that it does not seem to be a current practice suggests that it doesn't work, either. There was also some Federal Court litigation about it, I believe. At one point, the head of our local police precinct suggested that it might be put in place a block away from my house (near an apartment habituated by lawbreakers of several types), and I viewed that prospect with extremely mixed emotions. Never happened, however.

Posted by David in NY | June 4, 2008 3:25 PM

This was tried in New York some, I believe. The fact that it does not seem to be a current practice suggests that it doesn't work, either. There was also some Federal Court litigation about it, I believe. At one point, the head of our local police precinct suggested that it might be put in place a block away from my house (near an apartment habituated by lawbreakers of several types), and I viewed that prospect with extremely mixed emotions. Never happened, however.

Posted by David in NY | June 4, 2008 3:27 PM

Steve, assuming you're serious, what do you mean by riff-raff? I mean this both in the context of West Palm, and in your town, wherever that is.

Posted by alex | June 4, 2008 3:28 PM

Re Matthew's comment "So I say, look on the bright side!"
----------
Er... You can't.

Because they'll be shining the flashlight up your other end.

Posted by Don Williams | June 4, 2008 3:28 PM

riff-raff
One entry found.

riffraff

Main Entry: riff·raff
Pronunciation: \ˈrif-ˌraf\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ryffe raffe, from rif and raf every single one, from Anglo-French rif e raf altogether
Date: 15th century
1 a: disreputable persons b: rabble c: one of the riffraff
2: refuse, rubbish
— riffraff adjective

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A good dictionary is an indispensable tool when encountering that occasional word or phrase not normally part of your daily repertoire.

Posted by steve duncan | June 4, 2008 3:39 PM

General crime interdiction checkpoints have been illegal since Indianapolis v. Edmonds.

Posted by Suns Fan | June 4, 2008 3:46 PM

In The Federalist Papers, there's a debate about whether the Bill of Rights would be a good idea. The argument against it failed, obviously, but the concern was that by enumerating certain rights, it would imply that those are the only rights citizens have, or the most important and others are negotiable.

This kind of stuff makes me think that the wrong side won that argument. (The concession to the anti-Bill of Rights side was the inclusion of the ninth and 10th amendments, which have little or no meaning these days. Funny how that works.)

Draw a line, and either side has the benefit of the doubt if they aren't obviously, visibly over it. And then the more powerful side can sidle up to and bend and blur and twist the line, and the other side can just throw up their hands and say "well, they didn't go over it this time." What Constitutional amendment does this break? The first, about free association? No, people can hang out with whoever they want, the government is just saying where. The fifth, about searches and seizures? No one's getting searched or seized. If they can't produce it, presumably they'll just be turned back. The ninth or 10th? But the Constitution also says stuff about the government's role in keeping the peace or something, and that's the only goal of this, right?

I'm exaggerating here, and I'm not a lawyer so what do I know, but this stuff just makes me think that laws are very weak protection against law enforcers and lawmakers.

Posted by Cyrus | June 4, 2008 3:48 PM

Great idea. And how long will it take for the local citizens to start lobbing IEDs to get rid of the occupying army?

Time to get your guns for home protection, folks!

Posted by CParis | June 4, 2008 4:08 PM

Snake Plissken gives the plan two thumbs up!

Posted by Bob Oso | June 4, 2008 4:13 PM

I lived in occupied Berlin in the early 80s within sight of the Wall. One of the reasons I moved out of the DC area a year ago was it was beginning to resemble Berlin.

Sounds like I moved out just in time.

Posted by Thud | June 4, 2008 4:20 PM

How is this remotely legal?

I have no idea. It boggles the mind.

The D.C. police decided to arrest 500 people at World Bank protest for not obeying an order to disperse that was never given a few years back. A command decision that probably a 2 or 3 cars from being vandalized.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | June 4, 2008 4:21 PM

Anti-vagrancy laws, which are kin to this, are of ancient provenance, but I'm not sure if they're as broad as this or if the SCOTUS still OKs them.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 4, 2008 4:21 PM

I understand that this is specifically in response to a spate of late-night/early-morning shootings in Trinidad; but in Chief Lanier's statement she talks about specifically targeting "violent crime", and I find the approach hilariously misguided for that purpose. My understanding is that lots and lots of violent criminals walk or take the Metro to work (seriously) for muggings and street assaults on Capitol Hill, in Adams Morgan, Columbia Heights, U Street, and other neighborhoods east of the park. That's the violent crime that I'm actually worried about.

I certainly hope somebody puts the kibosh on this.

Posted by mark | June 4, 2008 4:35 PM

Back in '99, Chicago's anti-loitering law (aimed at gangs) got struck down by the SCOTUS. That was struck down for criminalizing status rather than conduct. This is a bit different, but still seems to have similar problems (a law-abiding citizen can't go to parts of the city without a valid ID? What constitutes a valid reason to be there?)

But then again, the makeup of the SCOTUS has changed as well, so who knows where the current court would come down on this.

(In his dissent to the '99 decision, Scalia wrote, "I would trade my right to loiter in the company of a gang member for the liberation of my neighborhood in an instant." Which is just begging for the response: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Some originalist!)

Posted by Royko | June 4, 2008 4:48 PM

The US Congress can probably do almost anything it wants in the District because of the District's special status called out in the Constitution.

It's not like this is new. The traffic circles (Dupont Circle,etc) were laid out at the beginning so that Cannons could be stationed to mow down any angry mobs approaching the Capital. An idea which transferred over very well to the era of heavy Browning machine guns. Just ask the Bonus Army.

Posted by Don Williams | June 4, 2008 4:59 PM

It is a matter of competing rights. Property owners or an association of property owners has the right to set up owner-controlled areas and control access. On the other hand, access to public roads and public facilitities does not mean owner-controlled properties can restrict movement through their area if access is needed for people to get to other places (inhabitants of Crack Whore City may pass through Pleasantville to get to the Projects in Slumville if bypassing Pleantville would impose a significant time and milage penalty on otherwise free travel).

It is more likely legally justifiable and stand against court challenge when the owner-controlled property is a cul de sac or destination enjoyed only by the property owners on roads meant only to serve residents and going no where else.

Gated communities, college campuses, municipal residents-only beaches, lakes come to mind.

In certain cases, cities or states may block off areas for public safety functions. In a riot, for disaster recovery, or limit access in a crime crackdown like a serial rapist loose in a neighborhood or cleaning up streets riddled with prostitution, drug pushers.

It is a growing, ,mostly positive trend, as well-off safe neighborhoods seek to stop marauders from high crime neighborhoods to travel there and predate.
It also is not just about cops stopping cars, but employing new technology of cameras everywhere so crimes caught in the act ensure no slick ACLU types or radicalized juries dare let someone caught on tape walk. And RFID devices that residents have that allow outsiders without them installed on cars or being warned to be stopped and queried by police without civil rights lawsuits..."you only stppped me and my homies 'cause we is black!! I wanna lawyer."

"Sorry, pal, you were stopped because none of you have the RFID signature of neighborhood residents, campus students - or their cars. That is why we stopped you. It holds up in court. You were not stopped simply because you look like out-of-place black thugs. And you are under arrest because we checked the closed circuit cameras that saw your car prowling around twice last week, then two of you mugging an elderly man."

Posted by chris ford | June 4, 2008 5:07 PM

Oh, they're not going to cordon off Georgetown. The gridlock on M street and hordes of polo-clad pedestrians does that better than Metro Police could, anyway.

Posted by Angry Sam | June 4, 2008 5:19 PM

This happens in an area of public housing near me. There's only one access road -- it's ringed by interstates and major highways -- and the entrance is permanently patrolled, although not checkpointed.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 4, 2008 5:19 PM

Which is just begging for the response: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Some originalist!)
Posted by Royko

Most people who quote that Franklin platitude fail to understand it was a nice peacetime throwaway line that Franklin discarded in wartime as enemies deserved neither liberty or safety and war called for measures unthinkable in peacetime.

Thus Franklin:

1. Supported the arrest and imprisonment of seditious Loyalists without trial or access to lawyers. That included his own Loyalist son, Richard, who he kept locked up 2 years in solitary and he also took custody of Richard's kid away from him. They spoke only once after 1776.

2. Headed the Committee on Secret Correspondence, our warrantless spy agency at the time...and which intel info was limited to only those members of the Continental Congress Franklin trusted and Washington's officers.

3. Advocated and then directed patriots to burn down American Loyalist printing presses. Clamping down on the American oppositions presses and destroying them was so successful that only those in areas constantly under British control survived.

4. Supported Washingtons military tribunals.

5. Supported taking Loyalist homes and properties without compensation to fund the war and after it, for rewarding Revolutionary War participants and paying down war debts.

Posted by chris ford | June 4, 2008 5:31 PM

And since we aren't fighting a revolution, Franklin's "peacetime platitude" applies. Call me when the undesirables in DC are trying to overthrow the government.b

Posted by anon | June 4, 2008 5:40 PM

Left unpondered by Matt: Why is crime in DC so awful that a desperate "solution" like this seems reasonable to the Democratic government of DC?

I don't favor such things, but people on the left ought to ponder why it is that the base problem exists. And no, it's not poverty. There was no massive upsurge in violent crime during the great depression, and people were a lot poorer then.

Posted by James Robertson | June 4, 2008 5:53 PM

What James Robertson said is good, true, and accurate.

There has been,in recent weeks, a slight reduction in the truly horrifying rate of gun killings of African-American males in my inner city.

Posted by wobbly | June 4, 2008 6:42 PM

Hamsterdam!

Posted by croatoan | June 4, 2008 6:54 PM

James is right. I don't think most here understand just how bad things are in the district. Seven murdered last weekend.

Not even the worst in the last year; there was a weekend, last summer, in which eight were murdered. I'm not saying what DC police are doing now is good, but it'd have been nice to see a bloggy post on the violent weekend before jumping on police reaction to it.

Posted by asl | June 4, 2008 7:04 PM

It's been happening on an occasional basis in Baltimore for years. There are neighborhoods where the police set up checkpoints for a period of hours and check every car coming in. People rarely get arrested - they stop, ask what you're doing, demand ID, etc. The point is to keep outsiders out. Why? Because they are neighborhoods plagued by street corner drug sales.
But it’s not a permanent blockade, rather a just often enough to put fear into people.
How it passes constitutional muster is beyond me.

Posted by Bob | June 4, 2008 7:22 PM

Our Constitution requires probable cause before police can search or seize us. I'd be surprised if even our current ultra-conservative Supreme Court would swallow that "doesn't need to be here" constitutes probable cause. That doesn't mean nothing can be done about horrendous crime problems. It just means crazy fascist stuff can't be done.

Posted by Gary Sugar | June 4, 2008 8:00 PM

chris ford fairly accurately demonstrates what the danger of these programs are. What starts out as an intelligent method of serving the cause of public safety during a spike in crime in an out-of-control neighborhood (like it's being done now) runs the risk of ultimately turning into a method whereby area residents decide to protect their "nice" neighborhood as an excuse to harass people on public streets with police barking "papers, please!" Not because there's a demonstrated interest for public safety but, likely excused "for the children" or simply as a means of intimidation.

Posted by Tyro | June 4, 2008 8:21 PM

Funny thing is: if you keep going at this rate, the US is gonna look just like the GDR in 20 years time.

Posted by novakant | June 4, 2008 8:45 PM

"If it's good enough for Baghdad..."

Is that a squirrel nut zippers reference?

As it relates to the story, I can't imagine what could possibly go wrong when a city with a huge african-american population is corded off into 'zones', and only allowed visitors when the local law enforcement approves. Seriously, what could wrong with this situation?

Posted by Whiskey | June 4, 2008 9:27 PM

Because of his support for this war when it mattered (before it began), I think Matt should do a tour as an Iraqi police officer

Posted by Jah | June 5, 2008 12:28 AM

They do this here in Beijing all of the time. It is laughably easy to get around. If an authoritarian police force that can beat your ass for fun without giving a real reason in a country where 94% of the population is of the same race can't do this effectively, I don't see how a police force in a democratic country in that country's diverse capitol can do this effectively. It's just more likely that this will raise racial tensions and lead to some cops beating or shooting some innocent black people at some point and just get everybody pissed off.

If you want to reduce violent street crime, END THE WAR ON DRUGS! This isn't rocket science. Much of violent street crime has to do with the drug trade. A bunch of thugs on a corner aren't going to be able to compete with legalized drugs sold in convenience stores manufactured by Marlboro.

Posted by Reality Man | June 5, 2008 1:30 AM

WOW! This Mayor is shooting from the hip. He has no real crime strategy. I work at a school in NE. I have to pass through one of the neighborhoods where many crimes have taken place. On numerous times I have been stoped and asked for my insurance, registration, and driver's liscense. Both times I expressed outrage that I had to produce these documents because I was simply driving through a crime ridden neighborhood. Mr. Mayor come up with a strategy for crime and stop coming up with these fly by the night solutions. This is why you should have hired an experienced police chief and not a puppett.

Posted by Melissa Willliamson | June 5, 2008 8:24 AM

How is this legal? Answer: Patriot Act.

While you all were busy watching your football, movies, getting drunk, and having sex, your government legislated your rights away with the Patriot Act. Under that act, the President is the king and the Attorney General can remove anyone simply by declaring them an "enemy combatant". Can you say "dictatorship"?

The real reason this is happening is that this is the plan for when China invades us and takes us over. You did hear about THAT plan on the news, right? And you do know that China now controls the Panama canal, is amassing troops in Mexico, and is building a nuclear ICBM base in Ecuador right in our backyard, right?

Yep - cheap goods made in China sure are good for Americans!

Posted by James | June 5, 2008 3:47 PM

I presume that the previous commenter can explain how the local city police have had their powers expanded by the Patriot Act.

And I'll ask Matt again, since he seems to have crawled into a hole and away from this subject: why is crime such a huge problem in so many cities in the US? Most of the cities in question have (and have had) liberal Democrats in power for years (decades in some cases). When will it be past time to try something other than "root causes" theory in any of these places?

Posted by James Robertson | June 5, 2008 9:20 PM

Surely a stronger dose would have cured the patient.

Posted by Jaybird | June 6, 2008 1:39 PM