Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Search policy violates rights

October 30, 2011

Advertisement

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ...”

— Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Just in case you forgot.

There has been, after all, an appalling amount of forgetting where that amendment is concerned. And New York City has become the epicenter of the amnesia. Yes, the “stop and frisk” policy of questioning and searching people a cop finds suspicious is used elsewhere as well. But it is in the big, bruised apple that the issue now comes to a head.

Federal agents recently arrested a New York City cop on charges of violating the civil rights of an African-American man. Officer Michael Daragjati allegedly stopped the man in April and threw him against a parked van to search him. No drugs or weapons were found, but Daragjati reportedly became angry when the man questioned his rough treatment and requested the officer’s name and badge number. So Daragjati ran him in on a charge of resisting arrest. Later, talking on the phone to a friend, he bragged that he had “fried another nigger” and that it was “no big deal.” This was overheard by the feds, who had him under surveillance in a separate investigation.

Let no one fix his or her mouth to pronounce themselves “surprised.” Blacks and Hispanics have complained for years about the selective attention they get from police. Giving cops the power to randomly stop and search pedestrians they find suspicious could not help but exacerbate the problem.

Last year, about 600,000 people were stopped and frisked in New York. Though blacks and Hispanics account for just over half the city’s population, they represent about 85 percent of those stopped. The Center for Constitutional Justice, a civil rights group, says drugs or weapons are turned up in less than 2 percent of those stops.

It bears repeating: less than 2 percent.

That failure rate suggests at minimum a need to change the standard by which police decide whom to stop. “Suspicion” obviously isn’t cutting it.

Daragjati’s alleged malfeasance also suggests a crying need for stricter oversight.

The argument in defense of stop-and-frisk can be boiled down to two words: It works. Marc Lavorgna, a spokesman for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, says crime has been driven to “historic lows” in part by this tactic.

The response to that argument also boils to two words: So what?

The crime rate has been falling for years all over the country, so it’s hard to single out what effect this particular tactic in this particular town might have had. But assume it does work. Can that truly be our standard for deciding what is acceptable?

If it is, why not allow police to search private homes without warrants? Why not ban private ownership of firearms? These things, too would work. More criminals would be arrested. Fewer people would die.

And all it would cost is a few constitutional rights.

Most of us are not black or Hispanic, most of us do not live in New York. But all of us have constitutional rights, so all of us have a stake in the drama playing out in our largest city.

The Fourth Amendment means what is happening there is wrong. Or it means nothing at all.

Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald. He chats with readers from noon to 1 p.m. CDT each Wednesday on www.MiamiHerald.com.

Comments

Liberty_One 3 years, 1 month ago

How dare Pitts. He slanders men like Rand Paul who would stand up for all our fourth amendment rights but then he complains about it when the state violates our rights?

It's people like Pitts that really don't get it. He can't seem to put two and two together. Politicians who are consistently in favor of more government intervention in all other areas of our lives are not going to make an exception for our individual civil rights. Those like Paul who are consistently in favor of smaller government are the ones standing up for our rights! He just doesn't get it and it's people like this that are harming themselves 9and the rest of us) by slandering those who actually stand for our individual rights.

Gandalf 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Liberty_One 3 years, 1 month ago

I asked you politely to stop harassing me and leave me alone. Don't talk to me anymore.

pace 3 years, 1 month ago

LO Your reason is inaccurate. You attack the argument by attacking the person. The argument stands.

jaywalker 3 years, 1 month ago

Amusing that the wizard is often berating others for posting sans substance, and yet all he seems to do is snipe.

jaywalker 3 years, 1 month ago

The next time you post something with substance will be the first time.

jaywalker 3 years, 1 month ago

What the heck is that supposed to be? Are you offering up a wholly cut and paste post as proof you add something to the discussion? Outstanding!

jaywalker 3 years, 1 month ago

Are you ok? Seriously now, are you doing ok? Because this article and the string attached have nothing to do with public servitude.

jaywalker 3 years, 1 month ago

That's "substance"? Why? Because unlike the majority, this post has more than one sentence? Looks like a bunch of rhetorical questions to me. Far from substantial.

Yeah, I took a quick look at your posting history. After 3 pages (and the above included) I'm confident in your hypocrisy.

jaywalker 3 years, 1 month ago

Ok, you should seriously seek help. - I don't know where you got that idea in the first paragraph - You're continuing on with a topic in the second paragraph as if I'm supposed to know what you're talking about (actually neither the first or second paragraphs have anything to do with this string; are you aware of this?) - And the last paragraph is made up of things I've never posted nor said aloud, but nice try at a dig.

Truly, I hope you're alright.

If, on the other hand, you simply believe a cut and paste with no personal input and a pack of rhetorical questions combined with a weak accusation directed at the LPD and LJW are PROOF that you occasionally post substantively.....

Same advice. Seek help.

jaywalker 3 years, 1 month ago

You're right! I didn't read those threads. It's also sad that you need to behave like a two year old and pretend I believe that SC decisions are not substantial or that I see nothing wrong with censoring the news. I've given no opinions on either, but thanks for proving what kind of person you really are.
The fact of the matter remains, the overwhelming majority of your posts are weak snipes that never lead to any kind of meaningful discussion. And I don't care how relevant a SC decision is, when we're talking about a poster adding substance to a string, that substance comes from themselves, not some cut and paste.
Lastly, it's amusing that in another attempt at a dig you would cut and paste again; this time, with a pathetic "definition" of substantive that includes the word you're trying to define. Brilliant!!!!!!!!!

jaywalker 3 years, 1 month ago

"Hate to be proven wrong?"

By WHAT?? I repeat, copy and paste is not an example of a "substantial post". We're talking about your own thoughts on an issue. And not a bunch of disjointed, rhetorical questions, either. I'm not lying about reading either thread. I have a life and don't troll these boards every day like yourself, sorry. Even you might notice I posted nothing to either string.

"Why can't you give an opinion?"

Let me get this straight: you want me to opine on a different string about stories I haven't read? And merely to allow you an attempt to prove you're able to actually formulate a conversational opinion? You really do need help.

"Sorry you don't like Webster's dictionary"

Sorry you're you. Has to be tough.

grammaddy 3 years, 1 month ago

Apparently we have very different definitions of what "slander" really is.

voevoda 3 years, 1 month ago

Ron Paul published overtly racist diatribes in his newsletter in the 1970s-1990s. Here's an example of it, preserved complete and verbatim by an organization that tracks neo-Nazi groups: http://search.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793

voevoda 3 years, 1 month ago

Liberty_One, This article isn't fabricated. It's authentically from the Ron Paul Political Report. You deny the facts simply because you want so desperately to believe in Ron Paul.

Corey Williams 3 years, 1 month ago

I think that bears repeating, and not just "monthy". "I myself would take harassment than fish from the Kaw."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

I scanned this article for any mention of Rand Paul, yet didn't find it.

I'll be scanning all articles I read today for Rand Paul, that poor oppressed senator from Kentucky with the unfortunate first name.

Getaroom 3 years, 1 month ago

Thanks you Leonard Pitts for another marvelous article!!
And ...just_math figures it all wrong - yet again. The one who rails against government at any chance, puts down people who rightfully gather to speak out against injustices, but who himself seems to have a beef with law enforcement doing their job and then plays the personal "someone done me wrong card". A couple of posts sound like bad country western songs, one in particular when "fishin' on the Kaw done went wrong".
Liberty_One and just_math inevitably go off on Pitts every time, like conjoined twins. It's kind of sweet really how they seem to be joined on the "right" side. Not to be confused with always correct mind you. Too personal? Ok, if it offends 'the' just have this entire post removed so thine eyes need not be offended. But wait, I am gathering peacefully here, don't gas me!!!!

Ron Paul is no hero, he is simply a man who chooses to live in a land made up of a fantasy society, where rules and regulations are not needed, the free market and humanity are Ethical and Moral and above all else they not greedy and therefore no need for Government. I should say he supports no regulations other than Biblical Law. We have a Rev Gov who is trying to live that dream at the expense of the well being of an entire state already. For Paul, Government might be needed to make an occasional war here and there or build a road. Ron Paul is not a leader, he is just another out-front man who is willing to parade his ideology around in public, not a bad guy, but misguided and delusional on a grand scale, whether well intentioned or not! And for Liberty_One it is OK for posters to get personal with journalists, but not him. The skin must be wearing thin, so I suggest toughen up, or like any one here, you are free to find a more Liberating blog for himself. Really, everyone here on this post, is quite willing and allowed to express their own ideas and thoughts about any subject that comes up, whether it be on global or more local issues. Opt in or out, the call is personal. There are plenty of web sites devoted to racists, bigoted and ultra conservative ideology, where cyber companionship and agreement can be found. One thing for sure, on this blog you are not always going to find agreement. If is a pat on the back is what you are looking for, reach your arm around and turn your palm over. You may however need to take some "Liberal Yoga" for that feat to be accomplished, unless of course you are flexible and it appears NOT! Much to your dismay of posters like Liberty_One and just_math, this is not an ideological black and white world. Who ever thought we needed human rights anyway? Must have been some whiners and losers who could not pull themselves up by the boot straps, or maybe they were non whites who wanted protection from "the others". Or maybe some "Liberal" who thought it was a good idea for the common good. Human rights? What? Defund them.

grammaddy 3 years, 1 month ago

I don't understand why anyone who despises Pitts as much as they obviously do would take the time to read and comment each and every time LJW features one of his columns.Why bother? I happen to enjoy his articles although I'm not always in agreement.

grammaddy 3 years, 1 month ago

It sure does. It boggles my mind how you can read slander and hypocrisy into any of it. You obviously don't have a clue about the minority experience.

jaywalker 3 years, 1 month ago

Do you happen to comment on Cal Thomas or Krauthammer's pieces much?

grammaddy 3 years, 1 month ago

Sometimes. I usually don't read the pieces I know I'm probably going to disagree with.

Liberty275 3 years, 1 month ago

"There is no one here that is a bigger defender of human rights than me."

Constitutional or human rights? If you really meant human rights, you win by default. I refuse to accept rules laid down by the UN, starting with:

"All human beings... should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. "

Constitutional rights? I'll give you a run for your money.

Liberty275 3 years, 1 month ago

"And for Liberty_One it is OK for posters to get personal with journalists, but not him."

It's in the TOS. Didn't you read it before posting on this award-winning news corporation's forum? Here's the relevant part:

• To respect others wishes. If someone asks you not to contact them or engage them, you should leave them alone.

Also, you have your Pauls mixed up.

jaywalker 3 years, 1 month ago

Have to agree with Pitts that 600k stopped and frisked for a 2% return is disturbing to say the least. And so is the cop's comments regarding trumping up charges. I'm curious how long it will be before all police are miked up at all times on the streets. I know video for patrolmen has been tested out on their person. With technology today, I have to believe such measures would have to be good for everyone involved; protection for the police for false accusations, and to protect themselves from themselves which would benefit the citizens. I've known a number of cops over the years and it's amazing how their attitudes towards a specific race will turn hostile due to what they deal with on a daily basis.

Liberty275 3 years, 1 month ago

Any number stopped and frisked for a 2% return is disturbing. Maybe someday the police will treat Americans like the people that pay their checks and not people they can abuse at will.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 1 month ago

An even more interesting statistic would be how many people of minority were charged versus those who weren't. People of all races commit crimes but it is the truth that certain races and social classes actually get away with it.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

That would be an interesting statistic.

Of course, I'm not sure how you'd get that, since we only know about suspects who are caught, tried, convicted, etc.

But, did you notice the ridiculously small percentage (2%) of those stopped who were caught with anything illegal?

This policy certainly seems to violate the 4th amendment to me - generally police need to get warrants, based on probable cause, before they can search you, in order to comply with that amendment.

That process involves convincing a judge they have sufficient cause to get that warrant.

50YearResident 3 years, 1 month ago

How true, when you are looking for criminals it only make sense to check those that commit the most crimes first.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 1 month ago

About 99% of those on death row are men. Are the laws really that sexist or is it that men commit 99% of the crimes that get you put on death row? I suspect sexism plays a very small role. Does a statistic like that translate to race? Probably not as much as some would like to think and more than others would like to think.

weeslicket 3 years, 1 month ago

i just find it interesting that a certain poster comments in volumes to articles on this site, and then requests that other posters NOT respond to those same posts! how very odd.

anyway, everyone back to their libertarian dystopias.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

And apparently, certain posters want to relive the argument had over this article

In which Pitts had the audacity to hold Paul accountable for his words and views.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

FYI: We lost our 4th Amendment Rights back in May of this year. I'm not surprised a lot of folks haven't heard about it as I don't believe a single word was mentioned by this award winning news site.

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

May 13, 2011 - What 4th Amendment? Indiana Sheriff Says Random, Warrantless House To House Searches Are Okay (from the thanks-Indiana-supreme-court dept.)

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kentucky-v-king/

And to top it all off, the U.S. Supreme Court made a similar ruling 3 days later.

May 16, 2011 - Kentucky v. King

Holding: The exigent circumstances rule applies when the police do not create the exigency by engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.

Plain English Holding: Police may enter a home without a warrant in response to an emergency (including the imminent destruction of evidence) so long as the police do not themselves create the emergency through conduct that violates the Fourth Amendment.

Judgment: Kentucky Supreme Court Reversed, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Alito on May 16, 2011. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissent.

The End is Near!

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

Are we winning the War on Drugs yet? 40 years of war on the poor...would you like some fries with your police state?

Crazy_Larry 3 years, 1 month ago

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

“Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

“These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

“An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260

“Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100

Mike Ford 3 years, 1 month ago

February 26, 2002, a Kiowa acquaintance and I had gone to White Cloud, KS. Lewis and Clark was the deal in that time. We took the highway north of Atchison and went up there. We left from the Rez and one of my headlights started going off and on. Rez cops pulled us over but they had no jurisdiction because we weren't Iowa Indians and that rez is very alloted meaning their jurisdiction was checkerboarded. They let us go but this wasn't for long. As soon as we made it down the hill to the part of NB-7 that floods and headed south towards Kansas and crossed over into Kansas we had a Durango and two cop cars on us. They did the whole circular thing looking into the car which had no trunk. Everything was in plain sight. They tried the separate question thing and my friend had his Kiowa ID. They didn't like the Columbus was lost sticker on my back window. My friend told me not to let them search because they looked and acted like planters of evidence. They asked for permission to search the car. I had no concept of fear and told them normally I would comply but since I knew they were profiling and I knew my rights they were not allowed to search my car. A couple of minute went by and they turned us loose. A couple of miles north of Sparks, Kansas, a county deputy coming north at us pulled us over again with a cop dog. We had a choice freak out or laugh.....we laughed. The cop dog scratched my new paintjob and I told the cop to get his d... dog off my car. We were let go again. I vowed not to go through another small Children of the Corn Nahollo town back to Lawrence. Later on I was at a McDonalds and told a man applying for the KHP this story. He told me I was lucky I wasn't tossed in the Missouri River and that they were corrupt. His words not mine. Funny enough it was big government that stopped the Klan nonsense around Philadelphia Mississippi in the early 1960's. It was federal laws that stopped public segregation that Rand Paul said was an overstep of federal authority a year ago. It was federal intervention that occurred at Little Rock and Ole Miss. I hear states rights...I hear racism... I'm happy that judicial activism ended Plessy V. Ferguson and a number of other nefarious racial laws. I love hearing waaaagh people like Libertybell attack big government when it takes big government to make his people behave. If you don't want federal intervention....behave appropriately towards others....sorry someone has to make you behave...

Liberty275 3 years, 1 month ago

The irony is amusing. I wonder if the government ever asked "baby, why do you make me do this?".

Liberty275 3 years, 1 month ago

Rez cops a Durango and two cop cars on us county deputy cop dog government Halloween Candy

One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others By the time I finish my song?

kansasredlegs 3 years, 1 month ago

While I doubt such police action as described in the article happens in Lawrence as there are no proven incidents, I think it's time for Mayor Cromwell to step up, open his mouth, and propose an ordinance protecting Lawrencians against such human rights abuses much like he he did so forcefully for the non-transgressed transgenders and cross dressers in our community. Come on Mayor Cromwell, protect us from LKPD even though no documented cases, if it could happen in NYC, it's gotta be going on here also based on your previous illogical and irrational methodology. Please save us!

Mike Ford 3 years, 1 month ago

math...you see mitty when you look in the mirror...right????

Commenting has been disabled for this item.