By Daniel LeDuc
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier and interim Attorney General Peter Nickles yesterday defended using checkpoints to prevent violence after a series of shootings left the District's Trinidad neighborhood shaken in recent months.
Under sometimes harsh questioning from a D.C. Council committee, Nickles and Lanier said they signed off on the plan only after careful legal analysis.
"I am comfortable with the constitutionality of this situation," Nickles said during a lengthy public hearing by the council's Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary. The panel's chairman, Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), has been a critic of the checkpoints, saying they engender ill will among residents and infringe upon civil rights.
D.C. police put a checkpoint on Montello Avenue on June 7 and ran it randomly over six days, asking drivers why they wanted to enter the neighborhood and allowing only residents and those with legitimate business there to enter. Officers reported that more than 700 vehicles were allowed through and that 46 were turned away. The American Civil Liberties Union, which monitored some of the activity, said at times that nine of 10 motorists were being denied entry.
Lanier said investigators had information that the killings in Trinidad involved gunmen driving in from other neighborhoods. "We had very specific knowledge of what the threat was in Trinidad," she said. While the operation was in effect, there were no shootings in the area, officials said.
Still, the program had gaps. While police tried to funnel traffic to the neighborhood through the checkpoint, there were many other streets allowing cars into Trinidad. And because pedestrians were not being stopped, drivers who were turned away could park their cars and walk into the neighborhood.
Residents appeared divided over the plan. Some testified yesterday that they did not consider it onerous to show identification if it quelled the violence, while others said the checkpoints were ineffective and humiliating.
"We are tired of having to listen to gunfire. We are tired of having bullets pierce the sanctity of our homes," said Kathy Henderson, a former leader of the advisory neighborhood commission in the area. She said she was launching a petition drive in support of Lanier.
Concerns about constitutional intrusions were "academic discussion," Henderson said, adding that residents felt that "our rights are being violated every time people descend on our community and commit crime."
Robert Vinson Brannum, another neighborhood leader, said stops and searches are becoming a part of American life, citing airport screenings and metal detectors in public buildings.
He said residents have a lower expectation of privacy in their vehicles than at home, adding, "I do not believe this program violates anyone's constitutional rights."
But others said the program was an intrusion and ineffective.
Council member Harry Thomas Jr. (D), who represents Ward 5, where the checkpoints were established, said he had initially gone along with the program. But after hearing from ward residents at a community meeting Friday night, he had concerns.
Slightly more than half of the 100 people at the community meeting filled out a questionnaire, and nearly two-thirds of respondents opposed the checkpoints. "The checkpoints create an atmosphere of uneasiness and distrust," Thomas said yesterday.
Deborah Golden, a Trinidad resident and constitutional lawyer, said she had to go through the checkpoints several times. They were "clearly unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment" that protects citizens from unlawful searches and seizures, she said.
She also said that she was able to easily circumvent the checkpoints by cutting through alleys and parking lots when she was in a hurry to get home and that she saw many others doing that as well.
The city's legal defense is flawed, other witnesses testified.
Although Nickles has previously cited a federal appellate court opinion upholding similar checkpoints in New York, critics said that the appellate courts for the District have ruled just the opposite and that a 2000 Supreme Court case appeared to invalidate the District's approach.
The D.C. Court of Appeals was clear, said Johnny Barnes, executive director of Washington's chapter of the ACLU: "Our court of last resort said you can't do it."
He said the ACLU was still considering whether to sue the District.
Staff writer Michael Birnbaum contributed to this report.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.