Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

City Requests Rehearing On Checkpoints Ruling

The District is asking a federal court to rehear its ruling that the controversial checkpoints in the Trinidad neighborhood were unconstitutional.

Attorney General Peter J. Nickles is leading city lawyers in asking the court to reconsider the ruling, calling it "overbroad."

Here's what Nickles said in the request: "The panel decision holds that the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement authorities in the District from ever stopping drivers at checkpoints in order to deter crime. Even assuming that general deterrence interests are insufficient to justify a suspicionless stop, the Court should hold that a properly tailored checkpoint may be reasonable, and hence constitutional, in at least some circumstances when federal or District authorities act in response to specific, credible threats of imminent violence."

Read the full request (pdf).

By Nikita R Stewart  |  August 10, 2009; 2:36 PM ET
Categories:  Nikita Stewart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Booker to Bloomberg: Shave Your Head Like Fenty to Ensure Re-Election
Next: City's Pools Are Open Longer -- Really


His stubborness never ceases to amaze me.

Posted by: boo2 | August 10, 2009 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Isn't this settled law somewhere? I even recall (admittedly vaguely) that the Supreme Court weighed in on this back in the sixties.

It cannot be a "new" issue.

Posted by: Curmudgeon10 | August 10, 2009 4:38 PM | Report abuse

This nazi Nickles, just doesn't get it with Gun Regulations or Checkpoints. Stopping ordinary citizens, without probable cause or absent individualized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing, restricting their movement on a public roadway, in an effort to generally detect or deter crime is prohibited under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Court of Appeals has already heard his argument. He can dress it up in any visually appealing legal language he wishes, but at the end of the day he is offering no new evidence to support his contention.

If he had it his way, if a citizen of the District, or tourist, is driving down a public road and comes upon a NSZ checkpoint, they could be restricted access to proceed because they don't "know" anyone who "lives" in that neighborhood. It is a form of neighborhood imprisonment, no matter what the District suggest to the otherwise.

Posted by: concernedaboutdc | August 10, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Just like the social workers who were supposed to BY LAW be reinstated and it never happened. I guess the chancellor, the mayor, his attorney general, the police chief as long as she tells the appropriate story at the right time and the other followers can do as they please while other people have to follow rules, policies and procedures.

Posted by: southyrndiva | August 10, 2009 8:34 PM | Report abuse

That man is one serious loose cannon nut job.

Posted by: candycane1 | August 11, 2009 7:37 AM | Report abuse

Interesting that WaPo has disabled comments on the piece about "Fenty in the Driving Seat". When the article first appeared, there were a few dozen comments. Now there are zero comments and the option is diasabled. Big Daddy must have called in some markers at the newspaper.

Posted by: logosdesigns | August 11, 2009 11:32 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company