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.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
