• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Akin Gump Hit With $72.6M Malpractice Judgment | Main | In D.C. Circuit, Insurance Companies Fight SEC Rule »

May 08, 2009


Ano Nymous

It is clear that anyone who believes that these checkpoints are constitutional, permissible, or reasonable under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence probably has about as much understanding of the law as a public high school student.

One week in a law school's Criminal Procedure or Constitutional Law class would show you the inexcusable errors of this "crime-fighting method."

I don't fault people for not knowing, but I'm glad there is a class of people who are learning enough about our nation's laws to spot violations of them in police practice. I'm not really sure what many of you would do without us!

Edward Kimel

I remember Winston Churchill saying, with regard to government secrecy in wartime, saying "The truth is so important that it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." Those of you who blame Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney on their actions and decisions during Mr. Bush's time in office, need to get your heads out into the open air, instead of being shoved up your backside. When dealing with an enemy as all pervasive as Al Queda, you can't have sympathizers in your own government, passing information to the enemy. We were, and still are, in a war with the terrorists.

With regard to the police stopping passing motorists, it could have been that the police were/are acting on a reliable source so as to believe that terrorists, gun runners, or criminals of any ilk are in the area for any kind of nefarious reason. It could be that the police intelligence divisions had received tips about suspicious characters/activities. This sort of thing comes under the heading of crime prevention. So give them some type of credit for trying to do their job.


The plaintiffs are not required to show "how they have been harmed". Rather, the defendants need to prove whether this program (and the tactics used by the program) are legal according to the U.S. Constitution. They should not be allowed to spit on the Constitution like that.

Steve Candelario

If an Officer has no Probable Cause to stop you. Then you are within your rights to go on your way without further question. Providing a phone number is unheard of. I would tell the Officer none of his business and let's see if it would stand up in court, that I did not provide a phone number. Again, what is the Probable Cause. Nothing. Therefore, no crime has been committed. Let's try this on every street where a Judge lives on and we would see this disappear real quick.


I agree with the police officer who was speaking about city of Indianapolis v. Edmond, however in that case the supreme court said ordinary criminal activity. From what I read, there could be a line drawn suggesting that these barricades are in response to other than normal criminal activity. I don't agree with the police either buy I,m just playing devils advocate. This seems as close to martial law as I've ever seen in my life.

Alan Davidofsky

I have been a police officer for 25 years and am entering my 3rd year of law school, and I am pretty sure that this issue has already been decided in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). The Supreme Court held that "we have never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing" and "Because the primary purpose of the Indianapolis checkpoint program is ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourt Amendment". Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Phil Miles

This is embarassingly police state. I was happy to see Ginsburg's name. Having had him for class I'm pretty sure he won't put up with the egregious violation of the 4th am.

Christopher J Hoffman

They only get away with this crap in ghettos. This is egregious law enforcement behavior that cannot stand.

"Excuse me, officer, let me get this straight, you have no probable cause and no reasonable suspicion of any that I have committed any specific crime? Then I am free to go , right? "

Thomas Carroll

Every person needs to tell the Gestapo to "Blank Themselves", when detained. If this type of crap can be set up there, then the sky is the limit. Shut these Nazis down, Now! If I had not lived through Bush/Cheney I would not even believe it!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad