I was recently educated on the preliminary stages of a controversial program in Washington, DC called Safe Homes. The program was set to begin in March of this year which would have involved door-to-door police interrogation tactics in high-crime communities. The police would ask if they could search the homes of people who resided in such communities to check for personal guns, something which is illegal in Washington, DC.
Thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union, DC Council representatives and residents in many of these neighborhoods, the program is changing. One may not initially perceive the problem in these searches. The searches are on a request basis and in areas where crime is high. If there are any cons at all, they appear to be outweighed by the pros.
Still, with the severe public and professional outcry, the DC Metropolitan Police Department was forced to slightly alter the procedure of the program by tweaking it so that residents could request a specific time for when the police could search the house. The difference is minute and relatively ineffective when it comes down to logistics.
What has been solved is the inconvenience of police randomly showing up at your door and just asking to rummage through your property and all of your belongings. Still, the central problem has not diminished. Deceptively, the Safe Homes program severely undermines 4th Amendment rights.
The 4th Amendment guarantees United States citizens reasonable expectations of privacy as well as the protection against unlawful search and seizure. It is from the 4th Amendment that the concept of obtaining warrants derives. In this case the police do not need a warrant nor are they violating 4th Amendment rights as they are requesting to search the places of residency, not insisting upon it.
Even so, the 4th Amendment is jeopardized in a situation such as this. The program was to take place (and still eventually will) in Southeast Washington, DC as it is the most crime-ridden area. It bears mentioning that it is also the most destitute region of Washington, DC. Northwest DC houses prestigious college students and top government and media officials. Southeast DC is a dismal area with failing public schools and rows of urban housing projects. It is also heavily black.
The Safe Home programs is borderline classist and racist. The fact is that the people who live in these communities have long suffered from a lack of proper basic education. Many of them are unable to read and write and the number of them who know what their 4th Amendment rights are fewer still. There is probably a significant percentage who do not even know their 1st Amendment rights.
Without knowledge of his/her 4th Amendment rights, an individual is oftentimes much more submissive to police authority and intimidation. Many feel compelled to abide by whatever it is the police say and they may not understand that they can turn down these police requests. Take it from someone whose room has been raided: it is far from the best experience.
There are a great number of concerns to be voiced. While gun ownership is illegal, many may place their safety before legality. In high-crime areas, one may feel compelled to purchase a weapon solely for the purpose of self-defense. Programs such as this in some ways contribute to the demise of self-defense.
Additionally, as previously stated, this is both classist and racist. These programs are being conducted in poor, heavily minority neighborhoods. Aside from the inherent and obvious level of classism and racism in this practice, it also drastically compromises the 4th Amendment rights of people who don't know that they have the right to say no.
Granting requests for appointment-only searches should not be perceived as a victory or compromise. This appointment concept further deceives the residents into believing that they do not have a choice and must let the officers in. The only solution—the only appropriate compromise—is to eradicate the program entirely.
People don't walk around and rob and murder their neighbors on a routine basis. The neighborhood with the highest crime rate might be the result of fugitives or criminals from other areas of the Southeast region. Perhaps a better idea would be more frequent patrol of high-crime neighborhoods. In turn, crime rates would decline and those from outside the neighborhood interested in committing crimes would be shunned by police presence.
This program is not only Constitutionally questionable, it targets the wrong people as well. Unfortunately, those are the people who always end up suffering at the hands of the law in the name of freedom and protection: poverty-stricken minorities.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Man, I would hate to be the "poverty stricken minority" member in that city, that's for sure.
Great blog entry/topic.
~ *~
Visit my blog! I'll even provide a link for ya:
Comments are always appreciated! :)
I'd say it crosses the line.
This disgusts me! What happens if a resident says no to the police request? I'm sure they say nothing will happen, but you know the police will take note of the homes that deny them access. I have no guns, no drugs, nothing illegal in my home, but I sure wouldn't want them in my house. What a violation! Police searches are not neat and they are a huge violation of privacy. I don't want cops in my underwear drawer. And also, if I were to deny them access to my home, how much you want to bet it is followed up with increased parking tickets or something like that?
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
hmmm... may be police patroling would be helpful. but idk... my g-pa was an LAPD and i've worked down in these sort of areas, and what we've found are that people are generally resentful of policemen lingering around. a necessary evil i suppose...
The police are damned if the do and damned if they don't.
I hear that in Detroit police call themselves "The Tourists in Blue". They drive around for their 8 hour shift and don't do a damn thing when a crime happens. They used to try to stop crimes but they got tired of causing a near riot every time they arrested a black criminal. They reached the logical conclusion that the residents preferred criminals and crime and being victims of crime to police enforcement efforts.
Inner City Washington DC is one of the highest crime areas in the country. It sounds like the police were trying to do something to solve the situation. It may have been a misguided effort but presumably, it was put together by people who were elected by those same people who are now the victims of these voluntary searches which do not violate their rights because they can say no.
I agree completely, accept the part about most people in SE DC are illiterate. They might not have graduated high school, or college, but they can read.
I accually live in DC and you are right. The law allows DC Metro officers to request a home search without a warrant, or even probable cause. One thing that is important to remember is that it is the Patriot Act that allows them to really do it.
In states, they have state constitutions, which carry more weight than the Federal Constitution. The federal constitution leaves room to debate what is unauthorized search and seizure, while most state constitutions dont. Since DC is not a state, we are not protected from the vaugue wording of the 4th amendment. In fact, the Patriot Act circumvents the 4th Amendment completely.
Meaning that DC Metro police can effectively implement this tactic city-wide, if they saw fit. I dont like leaving those kinds of responsibilities up to any one-person or group. Especially the DC Metro Police.
"my first name must be, "He aint sh@t", cause everytime I come through, yall be like "He aint sh@t"!....I'll be dat" --Redman
"Anything that can go wrong, Will go wrong"----Murphy's Law